Esteban Hernandez-Gomez v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 30 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ESTEBAN HERNANDEZ-GOMEZ, No. 12-74060
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-741-142
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 25, 2014**
Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Esteban Hernandez-Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the factual
findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the
petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Hernandez-Gomez’s
untimely asylum application is excused by changed or extraordinary
circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see also Ramadan v. Gonzales,
479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
With respect to withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the
agency’s finding that Hernandez-Gomez failed to establish a nexus between any
harm he fears and a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016
(9th Cir. 2010); 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”).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of
Hernandez-Gomez’s CAT claim because he failed to show it is more likely than
not that he would be tortured if returned to Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d
829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 12-74060