Opinion
No. 19-71143
05-26-2021
RODRIGO LOPEZ-NEPOMUCENO, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A088-737-159 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Rodrigo Lopez-Nepomuceno, 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 relief 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. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Lopez-Nepomuceno failed to establish the harm he experienced was on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (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"). Substantial evidence also supports the agency's determination that Lopez-Nepomuceno failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) (no clear probability of persecution where similarly situated family members were threatened but not otherwise harmed). Thus, Lopez-Nepomuceno's withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Lopez-Nepomuceno failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as unsupported by the record Lopez-Nepomuceno's contentions that the agency erred in its analysis of his claims.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.