Olegario Simon Mejia v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 552 F. App'x 751 ( 2014 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAN 23 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
OLEGARIO ISRAEL SIMON MEJIA, No. 10-73168
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-559-576
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2014**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Olegario Israel Simon Mejia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and 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”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the BIA’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
Simon Mejia contends he was attacked because of his family’s activities and
mixed ethnicity. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that
Simon Mejia failed to show his attackers were or would be motivated by a
protected ground. See Bolshakov v. INS, 133 F.3d 1279, 1280-81 (9th Cir. 1998)
(criminal acts bore no nexus to a protected ground); see also Parussimova v.
Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a
protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s
persecution”). We reject Simon Mejia’s contentions that the BIA used an incorrect
legal standard, did not fully consider the evidence, and erroneously relied on the
IJ’s findings. Accordingly, Simon Mejia’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2004).
Simon Mejia did not meaningfully challenge the BIA’s denial of his CAT
claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues
not supported by argument are deemed waived).
2 10-73168
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Simon Mejia’s contentions related to
voluntary departure and the sufficiency of the transcript because he failed to raise
these issues before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.
2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 10-73168