NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIRES RENE CANALES- No. 15-72368
GRANADO,
Agency No. A205-320-641
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 8, 2020**
Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Martires Rene Canales-Granado, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se 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
*
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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). 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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Canales-
Granado failed to establish that the harm he suffered or fears in El Salvador was or
would be on account of a protected ground. See 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.”). Thus, Canales-Granado’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Canales-Granado failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador.
See Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1033-35 (concluding that petitioner did not
establish the necessary state action for CAT relief); see also Aden v. Holder, 589
F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Canales-Granado’s contention regarding
adjustment of status because he failed to raise it to the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review
2 15-72368
claims not presented to the agency).
We do not consider Canales-Granado’s contentions regarding cancellation of
removal or voluntary departure because the BIA did not decide those issues, see
Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited
to the grounds relied on by the BIA), and Canales-Granado does not contend this
was in error, see Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir.
2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 15-72368