NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 19 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ORLANDO MENENDEZ-MARTINEZ, No. 15-72172 AKA Luis Enrique Ruvalcaba Gonzalez, Agency No. A200-965-764 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 16, 2021** Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. Orlando Menendez-Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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”). We have * 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Menendez- Martinez failed to establish the harm he experienced or fears was or would be on account of a protected ground. See Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that a personal dispute, standing alone, does not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground); 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”). Thus, Menendez-Martinez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Menendez-Martinez 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 El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject as unsupported by the record Menendez-Martinez’s contentions that the agency violated his right to due process, ignored evidence, or otherwise erred in its analysis of his claims. 2 As stated in the court’s August 20, 2015 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 15-72172 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Orlando Menendez-Martinez v. Merrick Garland 19 March 2021 Agency Unpublished 01638e879369d606fb6f88617b17ef7ff786be3a
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals