Luis Quinones v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 03 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS ALFONSO QUINONES, AKA Luis No. 13-73886
Quinones, AKA Luis Quinonez, AKA
Luis A. Quinonez, AKA Luis Alfonso Agency No. A070-552-171
Quinonez,
Petitioner, MEMORANDUM*
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Luis Alfonso Quinones, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding
*
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).
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings and de novo questions of law. Husyev v. Mukasey, 528
F.3d 1172, 1077 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The record supports the agency’s finding that Quinones failed to
demonstrate changed or extraordinary circumstances excusing his untimely-filed
asylum application. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B),(D). Thus, we deny the petition as
to Quinones’ asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Quinones did not
establish a nexus between any harm he fears in Guatemala and a protected ground.
See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2008) (under the
REAL ID Act, an applicant must prove a protected ground is at least “one central
reason” for persecution); see also 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.”). Thus, Quinones’ withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Quinones’ CAT
claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured
2 13-73886
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala.
See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-73886