NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
JAIME GARCIA-TORRES, No. 15-73214
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-561-698
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.
Jaime Garcia-Torres, 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”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
*
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).
findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 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 the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Garcia-Torres
failed to establish he suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See
Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (persecution is “an extreme
concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as
offensive” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We reject Garcia-
Torres’s contention that the agency should have considered harm to his step-
brothers in its past persecution analysis. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049,
1060 (9th Cir. 2009) (past persecution based on harm to others requires showing
that the persecution was part of “a pattern of persecution closely tied to” petitioner
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s determination that Garcia-Torres failed to establish he would
be persecuted on account of a protected ground, including membership in a family-
based social group. 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
2 15-73214
“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, Garcia-
Torres’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Garcia-Torres 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 Mexico. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
Garcia-Torres’s contentions that the agency violated his right to due process
fail. 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 relevant evidence).
As stated in the court’s January 8, 2016 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-73214