Jesus Navarrete-Jurado v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESUS NAVARRETE-JURADO, No. 15-73108
Petitioner, Agency No. A208-080-828
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jesus Navarrete-Jurado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se
for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. §
1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture and thus
is not entitled to relief from his administrative removal order. Our jurisdiction is
*
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).
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual
findings, Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016), and we
review de novo whether the statutory right to counsel was violated, Mendoza-
Mazariegos v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the
petition for review.
We reject the government’s contention that the court does not have
jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Martinez v. Sessions, 863 F.3d 1155,
1159-60 (9th Cir. 2017).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Navarrete-Jurado
failed to establish a reasonable possibility of future persecution in El Salvador on
account of 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.”).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Navarrete-Jurado
failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by the Mexican
government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d
at 836-37.
2 15-73108
We reject Navarrete-Jurado’s contention that the agency denied his right to
counsel. See Tawadrus v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004)
(explaining requirements for waiver of right to counsel). Navarrete-Jurado’s
contentions that there were other errors by the agency are not supported by the
record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-73108