NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 21 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE ERNESTO RIVERA, No. 18-70897 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-006-059 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 19, 2019** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Jose Ernesto Rivera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the * 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). agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. The record does not compel the conclusion that Rivera applied for asylum within a reasonable time of any changed or extraordinary circumstances as to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rivera failed to establish a nexus between the harm he suffered or fears and a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); see also 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, his withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Rivera failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 18-70897 18-70897 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Jose Rivera v. William Barr 21 February 2019 Agency Unpublished 44d9066910a1dfa621a03a791735db2db023bb83
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals