NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 18 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE EDUARDO DURAN-ORTIZ, No. 14-73422 Petitioner, Agency No. A089-926-009 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 12, 2018** Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Jose Eduardo Duran-Ortiz, 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 BIA’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. Duran-Ortiz does not challenge the BIA’s dispositive finding that his asylum application was untimely and that he failed to establish changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely filing. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to asylum. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Duran-Ortiz is not entitled to withholding of removal because he 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”). Finally, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Duran-Ortiz 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). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-73422 14-73422 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Jose Duran Ortiz v. Jefferson Sessions, III 18 September 2018 Agency Unpublished 7a2497e789e5fb49512b336054df2f53ea3586ac
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals