NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 11 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALBERTO MONTIEL-RIVERA, No. 17-72884
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-868-015
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 6, 2020**
Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Alberto Montiel-Rivera, 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 decision denying his application for 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 the agency’s
*
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).
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 Montiel-
Rivera failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he experienced or fears in
Mexico and 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”). We lack jurisdiction to consider Montiel-Rivera’s contentions
regarding a new social group that he did not raise to the agency. 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, Montel-Rivera’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Montiel-Rivera 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
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of
torture).
The record does not support Montiel-Rivera’s contentions that the BIA
failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of his claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 17-72884