NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 18 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE V. JUAREZ MORALES, No. 19-71441 Petitioner, Agency No. A202-064-171 v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 5, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: RAWLINSON and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and S. MURPHY, *** District Judge. Jose Juarez Morales, a Guatemalan native, petitions for review of the denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the * 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). *** The Honorable Stephen J. Murphy III, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation. Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition. 1. As a threshold matter, Juarez Morales argues that the immigration judge (“IJ”) did not have jurisdiction over his case because his Notice to Appear failed to specify a date and time for his removal hearing. But recent precedent forecloses this argument. In United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, we held that “the jurisdiction of the immigration court vests upon the filing of an NTA, even one that does not at that time inform the alien of the time, date, and location of the hearing.” No. 19-30006, 2021 WL 345581, at *2 (9th Cir. Feb. 2, 2021). Accordingly, the immigration court had jurisdiction over Juarez Morales’s removal proceedings. 2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Juarez Morales has not established the requisite nexus between the persecution suffered and a protected ground like “nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3); see also Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 357 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining that the protected ground must be “a reason” for the persecution). Although Juarez Morales testified that his partner ran for an “assessor” position as part of the Unionist party, he also admitted that neither of them have been harmed or threatened because of this. Indeed, none of the extortion calls included a reference to his partner’s political involvement. And Juarez Morales himself admitted that these calls could have occurred for any reason. Finally, Juarez Morales 2 admitted in his credible fear interview that he did not think the extortion was related to his wife’s politics.1 “An alien’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.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004) (upholding no-nexus finding where there was “no evidence that the perpetrators victimized him on account of his race as opposed to their observation” that he could be targeted for theft). Contrary to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals