Juan Banda-Huerta v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN JESUS BANDA-HUERTA, No. 16-73809

Petitioner, Agency No. A205-647-890

v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 15, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Juan Jesus Banda-Huerta, 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 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

* 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).

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 Banda-Huerta failed to establish that any harm his family experienced or that he fears in Mexico was or would be 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”). We do not address Banda-Huerta’s contentions as to his alleged membership in or the cognizability of the social group of his family, because the BIA did not rely on these bases in denying relief. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, in the absence of a nexus to a protected ground, Banda-Huerta’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Banda-Huerta failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 2016).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

Footnotes

[2] 16-73809