NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE EDUARDO DURAN-ORTIZ, No. 14-73422
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-926-009
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Eduardo Duran-Ortiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 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 Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the BIA’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny the petition for review.
Duran-Ortiz does not challenge the BIA’s dispositive finding that his asylum
application was untimely and that he failed to establish changed or extraordinary
circumstances to excuse his untimely filing. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d
1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to asylum.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Duran-Ortiz is not
entitled to withholding of removal because he failed to establish he was or would
be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d
1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (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”).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because Duran-Ortiz failed to show that it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured upon his return to Mexico. See Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049
(9th Cir. 2013).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 14-73422