NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IGNACIO RODRIGUEZ-CAYETANO, No. 13-72629
AKA Ignacio Rodriguez Cayetano,
Agency No. A205-319-504
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Ignacio Rodriguez-Cayetano, 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 applications for cancellation of removal,
withholding of removal, and relief 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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law.
Coronado v. Holder, 759 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2014). 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.
The agency properly denied cancellation of removal, where Rodriguez-
Cayetano failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that his conviction under
California Health & Safety Code (“CHSC”) section 11377(a) is not a controlled
substance violation that renders him ineligible for cancellation of removal. See
8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), 1229b(b)(1)(C); Pereida v. Wilkinson, 141 S. Ct.
754, 766 (2021) (an applicant for relief from removal cannot establish eligibility
where a conviction record is inconclusive as to which elements of a divisible
statute formed the offense); Coronado, 759 F.3d at 984-85 (holding CHSC
§ 11377(a) is divisible with regard to substance and subject to the modified
categorical approach).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rodriguez-
Cayetano failed to establish that the harm he experienced or fears was or will be on
account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483
(1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or
circumstantial”); see also Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011)
(a personal dispute, standing alone, does not constitute persecution on account of a
2 13-72629
protected ground); 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,
Rodriguez-Cayetano’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Rodriguez-Cayetano failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of
torture too speculative); see also Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35
(9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary “state
action” for CAT relief).
The stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-72629