Oscar Rosas-Grijalva v. Loretta E. Lynch

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 21 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR EDGARDO ROSAS- No. 12-71613
GRIJALVA,
Agency No. A099-526-533
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Edgardo Rosas-Grijalva, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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
*
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).
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009),
and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Rosas-Grijalva failed
to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on
account of a protected ground. See 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”); see also Molina-Morales v.
INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2001) (personal retribution is not
persecution on account of a protected ground); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,
1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’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.”). Thus, Rosas-Grijalva’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail.
Rosas-Grijalva does not make any arguments challenging the agency’s
rejection of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th
Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed
abandoned.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 12-71613