NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 28 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANUEL SALVADOR TRUJILLO- No. 12-71205
BARDALAS,
Agency No. A098-655-638
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Manuel Salvador Trujillo-Bardalas, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
*
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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey,
524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
We do not consider the new documents submitted as attachments to Trujillo-
Bardalas’ opening brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996)
(court’s review is limited to the administrative record).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Trujillo-Bardalas
failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he suffered and fears and a
protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)
(desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random
violence by gang members has no nexus to a protected ground). Thus, Trujillo-
Bardalas’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Trujillo-Bardalas failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Guatemala. See Aden
v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 12-71205