NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 29 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM ERNESTO ARCIA-RUIZ, No. 16-70946
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-196-742
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 26, 2020**
Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
William Ernesto Arcia-Ruiz, 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 applications 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
*
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).
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Arcia-Ruiz established
changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)-(5). We do not consider Arcia-Ruiz’s contentions as
to changed country conditions in El Salvador because the BIA did not reach that
issue, see Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review
limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA), and Arcia-Ruiz does not contend the
BIA erred in finding that claim was not properly before it, 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).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Arcia-Ruiz
failed to demonstrate that the harm he experienced or fears was or would be on
account of his family membership. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483
(1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or
circumstantial”); see also Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (a
petitioner who establishes membership in particular social group must also
“establish that any 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
2 16-70946
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,
Arcia-Ruiz’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Arcia-Ruiz failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Arcia-Ruiz’s contentions as to prosecutorial
discretion. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court
lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency); see also Vilchiz-
Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order).
As stated in the court’s June 28, 2016 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 16-70946