Martires Rene CANALES-GRANADO, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: January 10, 2020
Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Martires Rene Canales-Granado, James A. Musick Facility, Irvine, CA, for Petitioner Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Daniel Shieh, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Martires Rene Canales-Granado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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 (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Canales-Granado failed to establish that the harm he suffered or fears in El Salvador was or would be 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.”). Thus, Canales-Granado’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Canales-Granado failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1033-35 (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary state action for CAT relief); see also Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Canales-Granado’s contention regarding adjustment of status because he failed to raise it to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
We do not consider Canales-Granado’s contentions regarding cancellation of removal or voluntary departure because the BIA did not decide those issues, see Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA), and Canales-Granado does not contend this was in error, see Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.