NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
ABOGADIS ALVARADO-MORADEL, No. 15-72094
AKA Abogadis Alvarado, AKA Dennis
Guzman, Agency No. A206-408-448
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
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.
Abogadis Alvarado-Moradel, a native and citizen of Honduras, 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).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026,
1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Alvarado-Moradel only raises his fear of harm in
Honduras based on his family membership. Substantial evidence supports the
agency’s determination that Alvardo-Moradel failed to establish that the harm he
fears would be on account of his membership in such group. 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)); 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, his asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.
2 15-72094
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Alvarado-Moradel 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 Honduras.
See Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1033-35 (concluding that petitioner did not
establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Alvarado-Moradel’s cancellation of
removal and adjustment of status claims because he failed to raise them before the
BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks
jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 15-72094
Abogadis Alvarado-Moradel v. William Barr
Combined Opinion