Opinion
No. 14-71422
06-30-2015
JOSE ALFREDO ESTRADA HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A200-758-094 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Jose Alfredo Estrada Hernandez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se 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"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's finding that Estrada Hernandez did not establish a clear probability of future persecution on account of a protected ground if returned to Guatemala. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) ("[a]n 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"); see also 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"). Thus, we deny Estrada Hernandez's petition as to his withholding of removal claim.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Estrada Hernandez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government if returned to Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, we deny Estrada Hernandez's petition as to his CAT claim as well.
We lack jurisdiction over Estrada Hernandez's hardship and due process contentions because he did raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
Finally, Estrada Hernandez's challenge to the conditions of his bond is not properly before us. See, e.g., Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (clarifying the proper procedure for challenging a Casas-Castrillon bond determination).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.