NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 22 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GERMAN HERRERA LOPEZ, No. 19-73014 Petitioner, Agency No. A201-174-142 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 17, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: S.R. THOMAS, BEA, and H. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. German Herrera Lopez petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from the denial by an immigration judge (IJ) of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. * 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). § 1252. We deny the petition for review. 1. Herrera Lopez’s asylum application was untimely because it was not filed within a year of his arrival in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B); Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 2001), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). The agency correctly concluded that the delay was attributable to Herrera Lopez’s action or inaction, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5), and that Herrera Lopez did not show a material change in circumstances or extraordinary circumstances that excuse his failure to file the application until approximately two years had passed from the date of his uncle’s murder, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D); Sumolang v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1080, 1082–83 (9th Cir. 2013). 2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Herrera Lopez is ineligible for withholding of removal because he did not establish a nexus between his fear of persecution and his membership in a particular social group. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that a person’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence” has “no nexus to a protected ground”). 3. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Herrera Lopez is not likely to be tortured. Evidence of generalized violence and crime that is not particular to the petitioner is insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT 2 relief. See, e.g., Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010). PETITION DENIED. 3 19-73014 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. German Herrera Lopez v. Merrick Garland 22 June 2022 Agency Unpublished ad570de8f522b878cd4206546e4f6721dfadb418
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals