Jorge Martinez v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 599 F. App'x 289 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 19 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE MARTINEZ, No. 10-73015
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-318-047
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.
Jorge Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
*
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).
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual findings. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006).
We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez’s challenge to the agency’s
discretionary denial of his application for voluntary departure. See Esquivel-
Garcia v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 2010).
Substantial evidence supports both the BIA’s determination that Martinez
failed to establish a nexus between any harm he suffered and fears and a protected
ground, see Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (a “desire to be
free from . . . random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected
ground”), and the BIA’s finding that he failed to show it is more likely than not
any harm would occur, see Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003)
(future persecution too speculative). Thus, Martinez’s withholding of removal
claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Martinez’s CAT
claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador if
2 10-73015
returned. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus,
Martinez’s CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 10-73015