Luis Lemus v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 29 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS LEMUS, No. 11-71092
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-451-845
v.
MEMORANDUM*
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 Lemus, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
*
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).
the agency’s factual findings. Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir.
2011). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lemus failed
to demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on
account of a protected ground. See id. at 1098 (mistreatment motivated purely by
personal retribution does not bear a nexus to a protected ground); see also
Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 746-47 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting
petitioner’s claim where he “provided no evidence that his opposition to the gang’s
criminal activity was based on political opinion”), overruled on other grounds by
Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). We
lack jurisdiction to consider Lemus’ unexhausted contention regarding a “hybrid”
nexus analysis. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Thus,
Lemus’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Zetino v. Holder, 622
F.3d 1007, 1015-16 (9th Cir. 2010).
The 90-day stay of proceedings granted on November 13, 2015, has expired.
Respondent’s motion to lift the stay is denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2 11-71092