NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SERGIO ISRAEL ALVEAR-MARTINEZ, No. 17-73199
AKA Sergio Alvear-Martinez,
Agency No. A208-411-837
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Sergio Israel Alvear-Martinez, 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 (“IJ”) 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).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-
85 (9th Cir. 2006), and review de novo claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings, Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We
dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Alvear-Martinez’s contention that the IJ
violated his due process rights because he failed to raise the claim to the BIA. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). We also lack
jurisdiction to consider Alvear-Martinez’s contentions regarding particular social
groups and political opinion that he did not raise to the agency. See id.
Alvear-Martinez does not challenge the agency’s dispositive conclusion that
his asylum application was untimely, or raise any arguments challenging the
agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072,
1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s
opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition as to Alvear-Martinez’s
asylum and CAT claims.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Alvear-
Martinez failed to establish that any harm he experienced or fears in Mexico was
2 17-73199
or would be 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”); Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir.
2001) (harm based on personal retribution is not persecution on account of a
protected ground). Thus, we deny the petition as to Alvear-Martinez’s withholding
of removal claim.
We reject Alvear-Martinez’s contention that the BIA violated his due
process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring
error to prevail on a due process claim).
Finally, Alvear-Martinez’s motion to remand, set forth in his opening brief,
and motion to supplement the administrative record, Docket Entry No. 21, are
denied. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (court’s
review is limited to the administrative record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 17-73199