NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAUL GOMEZ-AGUILAR, AKA Saul No. 20-71350 Gomez Agular, Agency No. A098-570-798 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 14, 2023** Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Saul Gomez-Aguilar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (“CAT”), and denying his motion to remand or terminate. We have 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 review for abuse of discretion the denial of motions to remand and to terminate proceedings. See Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005); Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and remand. The record does not compel the conclusion that Gomez-Aguilar established changed circumstances to excuse the untimely asylum application. See Singh v. Holder, 649 F.3d 1161, 1164-65 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (court retained jurisdiction to review legal or constitutional questions related to the one-year filing deadline); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4) (changed circumstances defined). Thus, Gomez-Aguilar’s asylum claim fails. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gomez- Aguilar failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”); 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 2 20-71350 members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Gomez-Aguilar’s withholding of removal claim fails. We do not consider Gomez-Aguilar’s contention as to whether the Mexican government is unable or unwilling to protect him because the BIA did not deny relief on this ground. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA). We also do not consider his imputed political opinion claim because the agency did not reach it, and Gomez-Aguilar does not contend the BIA erred in finding that this claim was not properly before it. See id.; see also Corro-Barragan v. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals