NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAUL ESPINOZA GONZALEZ No. 17-72663
Petitioner,
Agency No. A077-076-595
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney MEMORANDUM*
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Saul Espinoza Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §1252. We review for substantial evidence the
*
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).
agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We deny the petition for review.
Even if the extortion threats to his mother constituted changed
circumstances, the record does not compel the conclusion that Espinoza Gonzalez
filed his asylum application within a reasonable period of time. See 8 C.F.R. §
1208.4(a)(4); see also Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1181-82 (9th Cir. 2008)
(364-day delay in filing based on extraordinary circumstances not reasonable).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Espinoza
Gonzalez failed to establish that he would be persecuted on account of a protected
ground if returned to Mexico. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir.
2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant
must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in
such group”) (emphasis in original). Thus, in the absence of a nexus to a protected
ground, Espinoza Gonzalez’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Zetino v.
Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Espinoza Gonzalez failed to show it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. See
Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too
speculative).
2 17-72663
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 17-72663