RAMIREZ RODRIGUEZ v. WILKINSON (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Olivo Ramirez-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's (“IJ”) decision denying his application for 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 BIA's determination that Ramirez-Rodriguez failed to establish that the harm he suffered or fears in Mexico was or would be on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); 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”); see also 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”). We lack jurisdiction to consider Ramirez-Rodriguez's unexhausted contention regarding domestic violence. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). Thus, Ramirez-Rodriguez's withholding of removal claim fails.

Ramirez-Rodriguez does not raise, and has therefore waived, any challenge to the BIA's determination that he did not meaningfully contest the IJ's denial of CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party's opening brief are waived).

Ramirez-Rodriguez's contention that the agency lacked jurisdiction over his proceedings is foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (omission of certain information from initial notice to appear can be cured for jurisdictional purposes by later hearing notice). See also United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 986 F.3d 1245 (9th Cir. 2021).

As stated in the court's August 18, 2015 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.