NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 27 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FIDADELFO CEFERINO CALDERON- No. 15-73490
CARILLO,
Agency No. A071-521-952
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an
Immigration Judge’s Decision
Submitted October 23, 2017**
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Fidadelfo Ceferino Calderon-Carillo, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and
thus is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s
factual findings, Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016), and
we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Calderon-Carillo
failed to establish a reasonable possibility of future persecution in Guatemala on
account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.
2010) (“An [applicant’s] desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated
by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected
ground.”).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Calderon-Carillo
failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or
acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. See Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at
836-37.
We do not consider the materials Calderon-Carillo references for the first
time in his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher
v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court’s review is limited to “the
administrative record upon which the [removal] order is based”) (internal quotation
and citation omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 15-73490