Francisco Herrera Vega v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO JAVIER HERRERA VEGA, No. 15-72194
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-090-093
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Javier Herrera Vega, native and citizen of Mexico, 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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th
Cir. 2020). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Herrera Vega
failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he experienced or fears in Mexico
and a protected ground. See 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”);
Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009) (political opinion claim failed
where petitioner did not present sufficient evidence of political or ideological
opposition to the gang’s ideals), abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v.
Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Thus, his withholding of
removal claim fails.
We lack jurisdiction to consider the particular social groups raised for the
first time in Herrera Vega’s opening brief because he failed to raise them before
the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks
jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Herrera Vega failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
2 15-72194
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture).
We reject Herrera Vega’s contention that the agency erred in its analysis of
his claims as unsupported by the record.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 15-72194