ORTIZ RIVERA v. SESSIONS III (2017)

MEMORANDUM **

Liobardo Ortiz-Rivera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Gutierrez v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ortiz-Rivera failed to establish the requisite ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States for cancellation of removal, where the Form I-826, dated September 13, 2011, indicates that Ortiz-Rivera requested voluntary departure in lieu of removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(A); Gutierrez, 521 F.3d at 1117-18 (requiring some evidence that the alien was informed of and accepted the terms of the voluntary departure agreement); cf. Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 619-20 (9th Cir. 2006) (insufficient evidence that alien knowingly and voluntarily accepted voluntary departure where record did not contain the voluntary departure form and petitioner’s testimony suggested that he accepted return due to misrepresentations by immigration officers).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of removal, where Ortiz-Rivera failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he would be subject to persecution on account of a protected ground. See 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.”); Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that the proposed group of “imputed wealthy Americans” is too broad to qualify as cognizable).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Ortiz-Rivera’s CAT claim because he did not demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government if returned. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.