Orlando Salvador GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: February 02, 2020
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Ramiro Jose Lluis, Attorney, Law Offices of Ramiro J. Lluis, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner Michele Yvette Frances Sarko, Esquire, Attorney, Tracie Nicole Jones, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Orlando Salvador Gonzalez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gonzalez failed to establish that the attempted recruitment by guerrillas rose to the level of persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (persecution is an “extreme concept” that includes the “infliction of suffering or harm” (citation omitted)). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Gonzalez failed to establish he would be persecuted 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, Gonzalez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal because Gonzalez raises no colorable legal or constitutional claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2005) (the court’s jurisdiction over challenges to the agency’s discretionary hardship determination is limited to constitutional claims or questions of law).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding that remand was not warranted. See Movsisian, 395 F.3d at 1098 (the BIA abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law). We do not consider new facts referenced in the opening brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (this court’s review is limited to the administrative record).
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.