NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN ADRIAN QUIM-GONON, No. 15-70570
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-840-033
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 7, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Juan Adrian Quim-Gonon, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
*
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).
questions of law. Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008). We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and grant in part the
petition for review, and we remand.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Quim-Gonon failed
to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground.
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”). Our conclusion is not affected
by the differing nexus standards applicable to asylum and withholding of removal
claims. Cf. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017)
(discussing Zetino v. Holder having drawn no distinction between the standards
where there was no nexus at all to a protected ground). Thus, Quim-Gonon’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
The BIA erred in finding that Quim-Gonon did not meaningfully raise his
CAT claim before the IJ. Quim-Gonon’s asylum application, declaration, and pre-
hearing statement identified his fear of torture. See Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d
1077, 1086 n.9 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[A] CAT claim is sufficiently raised when an
alien declares his fear of future torture on his asylum application and provides
supporting evidence during the removal hearing.”). The agency also erred by not
2 15-70570
considering Quim-Gonon’s country condition evidence as it related to his CAT
claim. See Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 705 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, we
grant the petition for review and remand Quim-Gonon’s CAT claim to the agency
for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537
U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3 15-70570