Daniel Hernandez MacEda v. Jefferson Sessions, III

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 13 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANIEL HERNANDEZ MACEDA, No. 17-71120 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-600-718 v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 10, 2018** Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Daniel Hernandez Maceda, 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 (“IJ”) 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 BIA’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review de novo questions of law and claims of due process violations. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Hernandez Maceda failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (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, we deny Hernandez Maceda’s petition as to his asylum and withholding of removal claims. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Hernandez Maceda failed to show that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured upon his return to Mexico. See Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049 (9th Cir. 2013) (evidence did not compel the conclusion that it was more likely than not that the petitioner would be tortured upon return). Finally, we reject Hernandez Maceda’s contention that the IJ violated his due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 17-71120 17-71120 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Daniel Hernandez MacEda v. Jefferson Sessions, III 13 July 2018 Agency Unpublished a9eed61c1c39aff2db9c3ff54f5d7ebaabaf9041

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals