Jose Guevara v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 597 F. App'x 446 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 16 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MAURICIO GUEVARA, No. 12-73576
Petitioner, Agency No. A070-459-751
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jose Mauricio Guevara, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se
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, protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
(“CAT”), voluntary departure, and special-rule cancellation of removal under the
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”). Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir.
2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of asylum because
Guevara did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a
protected ground in El Salvador. See Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th
Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (a personal dispute unconnected to a protected ground is
not a basis for asylum); Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1016 (“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.”).
Because Guevara did not establish eligibility for asylum, it follows that he
did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS,
332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Guevara failed to demonstrate that he will more likely than not suffer
torture upon his return to El Salvador. See Blandino-Medina v. Holder, 712 F.3d
1338, 1348 (9th Cir. 2013).
2 12-73576
In his opening brief, Guevara fails to address, and therefore has waived any
challenge to, the agency’s denial of his requests for voluntary departure and
NACARA special-rule cancellation of removal on the basis of a controlled
substance violation. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th
Cir. 2013) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Guevara’s unexhausted contention that he
was not afforded an opportunity to gather evidence in support of his requests for
relief. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (per
curiam) (“Petitioner will therefore be deemed to have exhausted only those issues
he raised and argued in his brief before the BIA.”).
We also lack jurisdiction to review Guevara’s request for release from
immigration custody on the condition of bond. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 12-73576