NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 15 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROGELIO SILVA-ESTRADA, No. 16-71027
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-097-655
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Rogelio Silva-Estrada, 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”). Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
*
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).
the agency’s factual findings. Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir.
2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Silva-Estrada
failed to establish that he would be persecuted 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”); see also Ayala, 640 F.3d at
1097 (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”). We lack jurisdiction to consider Silva-Estrada’s proposed social
group related to individuals from his hometown. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented
to the agency). Thus, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Silva-Estrada 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 Mexico. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
Finally, Silva-Estrada’s contention that the agency failed to give proper
weight to his evidence, including his testimony, is unsupported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2