Felix Inocente-Hernandez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 2 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FELIX INOCENTE-HERNANDEZ, No. 10-71413
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-812-528
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Felix Inocente-Hernandez, 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 withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny
the petition for review.
Inocente-Hernandez contends he established a nexus to a protected ground
based on his membership in a proposed social group of small landowners.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Inocente-Hernandez failed
to establish any past or future harm was or would be 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”); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483
(1992) (petitioner failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground). In the absence
of a nexus to a protected ground, Inocente-Hernandez’s withholding of removal
claim fails. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190 (to qualify for withholding of removal,
petitioner must show it is more likely than not he would be subjected to
persecution on account of a protected ground).
Finally, Inocente-Hernandez does not substantively challenge the agency’s
denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th
Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 10-71413