NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 15 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WEINER ANIBAL RODAS MIRANDA, No. 16-70219 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-774-793 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 12, 2022** Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Weiner Anibal Rodas Miranda, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se 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 * 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”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184- 85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rodas Miranda failed to establish the harm he fears would be 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 members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). We do not reach Rodas Miranda’s contentions regarding the cognizability of his proposed particular social group because the agency did not deny relief on that ground. See Santiago- Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA). Thus, Rodas Miranda’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Rodas Miranda failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or 2 16-70219 with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). Rodas Miranda’s contentions that the agency violated his due process rights fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (error and prejudice are required to prevail on a due process claim). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 16-70219 16-70219 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Weiner Rodas Miranda v. Merrick Garland 15 July 2022 Agency Unpublished 4abd47658d8c1fb7c86f86691a78d26f5d99e773
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals