Opinion
No. 14-73545
08-24-2016
ENRIQUE DOQUE-LORENZANA, AKA Enrique Henrry Duke, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A201-114-227 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Enrique Doque-Lorenzana, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") 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 jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Doque-Lorenzana failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution on account of an enumerated 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 Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1016 ("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."); Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001) (harm based on personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground). We reject Doque-Lorenzana's contention that the agency erred in its analysis. Thus, Doque-Lorenzana's withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the BIA's denial of CAT relief because Doque-Lorenzana failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by the Mexican government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.