NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 13 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE DE LA CRUZ SANTOS, No. 16-72549
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-807-847
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 9, 2022**
Anchorage, Alaska
Before: HURWITZ, BRESS, and H. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Jorge de la Cruz Santos petitions for review of a Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from the denial by an immigration
judge (IJ) of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252 and deny the petition for review.
1. De la Cruz Santos’s asylum application was untimely because it was not
filed within a year of his arrival in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B);
Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 2001), superseded by statute on other
grounds as stated in Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007) (per
curiam). The agency correctly concluded that De la Cruz Santos did not show a
material change in circumstances or extraordinary circumstances excusing the
delay. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); Sumolang v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1080, 1082–83
(9th Cir. 2013).
2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that De la Cruz
Santos is ineligible for withholding of removal because he did not establish a nexus
between his fear of persecution and his membership in a particular social group.
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that a person’s
“desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random
violence” has “no nexus to a protected ground”).
3. De la Cruz Santos forfeited his claim for CAT relief because his opening
brief did not point to any specific error in the BIA’s and IJ’s analysis of his CAT
claim. See Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION DENIED.
2