Tomas Tufino-Pluma v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TOMAS TUFINO-PLUMA, No. 16-71528
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-710-547
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Tomas Tufino-Pluma, 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, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and voluntary
*
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).
departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of voluntary
departure. See Esquivel-Garcia v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir. 2010);
Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (absent a colorable
legal or constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary
determinations).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Tufino-Pluma
failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears 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 . . . bears
no nexus to a protected ground.”). Thus, we deny the petition as to Tufino-
Pluma’s asylum and withholding of removal claims.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Tufino-Pluma failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2