German Herrera Lopez v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERMAN HERRERA LOPEZ, No. 19-73014
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-174-142
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 17, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: S.R. THOMAS, BEA, and H. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
German Herrera Lopez petitions for review of a Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from the denial by an immigration
judge (IJ) of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We deny the petition for review.
1. Herrera Lopez’s asylum application was untimely because it was not
filed within a year of his arrival in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B);
Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 2001), superseded by statute on other
grounds as stated in Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007) (per
curiam). The agency correctly concluded that the delay was attributable to Herrera
Lopez’s action or inaction, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5), and that Herrera Lopez did not
show a material change in circumstances or extraordinary circumstances that
excuse his failure to file the application until approximately two years had passed
from the date of his uncle’s murder, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); Sumolang v.
Holder, 723 F.3d 1080, 1082–83 (9th Cir. 2013).
2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Herrera
Lopez is ineligible for withholding of removal because he did not establish a nexus
between his fear of persecution and his membership in a particular social group.
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that a person’s
“desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random
violence” has “no nexus to a protected ground”).
3. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Herrera
Lopez is not likely to be tortured. Evidence of generalized violence and crime that
is not particular to the petitioner is insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT
2
relief. See, e.g., Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION DENIED.
3