NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODRIGO LOPEZ-NEPOMUCENO, No. 19-71143
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-737-159
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Rodrigo Lopez-Nepomuceno, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lopez-
Nepomuceno failed to establish the harm he experienced was on account of 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”).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Lopez-
Nepomuceno failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution. See
Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (no clear probability of
persecution where similarly situated family members were threatened but not
otherwise harmed). Thus, Lopez-Nepomuceno’s withholding of removal claim
fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Lopez-Nepomuceno 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).
We reject as unsupported by the record Lopez-Nepomuceno’s contentions
that the agency erred in its analysis of his claims.
2 19-71143
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 19-71143