NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 13 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELIBER ULISES MARTINEZ LOPEZ, No. 18-70759
Petitioner, Agency No. A208-130-034
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 11, 2020**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Eliber Ulises Martinez Lopez, 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 decision denying his application for asylum
and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales,
*
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).
453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review de novo claims of due process
violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th
Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Martinez
Lopez failed to establish that he was or would be persecuted on account of a
protected ground. 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”); 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, Martinez
Lopez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
To the extent Martinez Lopez now relies on social groups that were not
presented to the agency, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review
claims not presented to the agency).
We reject Martinez Lopez’s contention that the IJ and the BIA applied the
wrong standard of proof for withholding of removal. The IJ and the BIA both
recognized that, under our decision in Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th
2
Cir. 2017), the protected ground need only be “a reason” for the persecution, not
“the one central reason” required for asylum.
Martinez Lopez’s contends that the agency violated his due process rights by
ignoring and misrepresenting his testimony. The record does not support this
claim. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to
prevail on a due process claim); see also Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092,
1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must overcome the presumption that BIA
considered all the relevant evidence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3