Marcos Guiterrez-Alfredo v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCOS GUITERREZ-ALFREDO, AKA No. 14-70970
Marcos Gutierrez-Alfredo,
Agency No. A200-824-064
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges
Marcos Guiterrez-Alfredo, 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 asylum,
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 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.
Respondent’s Motions to Revise Brief (Docket Entries No. 21 and No. 24)
are granted.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Guiterrez-Alfredo filed his
asylum application within a reasonable time given his changed circumstances. See
8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4); Taslimi v. Holder, 590 F.3d 981, 984-986 (9th Cir. 2010).
We reject Guiterrez-Alfredo’s contention that this claim needs to be remanded to
the BIA for further analysis. Thus, Guiterrez-Alfredo’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Guiterrez-
Alfredo failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears and a protected
ground. 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”
(emphasis in original)); 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.”). In light of our conclusion as to nexus, we reject Guiterrez-Alfredo’s
contention that the case should be remanded pursuant to Barajas-Romero v. Lynch,
2 14-70970
846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017). Further, we reject Guiterrez-Alfredo’s contention
that the agency applied the wrong standard in evaluating his withholding of
removal claim. Thus, his withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Guiterrez-Alfredo failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-70970