NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DIONISIO CHAIREZ-CASTRO, No. 15-70961
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-889-484
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Dionisio Chairez-Castro, 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 applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except
to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing
statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004).
We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny in
part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Chairez-Castro
failed to establish he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground.1 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”). Thus, Chairez-Castro’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail.
Chairez-Castro does not challenge the agency’s determination that he is
ineligible for CAT protection, so that issue is waived. See Martinez-Serrano v.
INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and
argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
1
To the extent that Chairez-Castro argues he is a member of a particular
social group related to domestic violence, we lack jurisdiction to review his claim
because he failed to exhaust it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
2 15-70961
To the extent Chairez-Castro contends that the immigration judge lacked
jurisdiction over his proceedings, his argument is foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v.
Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir. 2020) (an initial notice to appear need not
contain time, date, and place information to vest an immigration court with
jurisdiction if such information is provided before the hearing).
Finally, although Chairez-Castro asserts that he is eligible to apply for
cancellation of removal, he did not apply for such relief before the agency; thus,
we lack jurisdiction over this unexhausted claim. See Barron, 358 F.3d at 677-78.
As stated in the court’s May 5, 2015 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 15-70961