NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 22 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GENARO BAUTISTA-SANTIAGO, AKA No. 15-73124 Gernaro Bautista-Santiago, AKA Genaro Bautistasantiago, Agency No. A206-547-699 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 15, 2017** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Genaro Bautista-Santiago, 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 his application for asylum, withholding of * 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). removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. Bautista-Santiago does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that his asylum application was untimely and that he failed to establish extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely filing. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to asylum. The agency did not err in finding that Bautista-Santiago failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that “returning Mexicans from the United States” did not constitute a particular social group). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Bautista-Santiago otherwise failed to establish that any harm he fears in Mexico will be on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (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, Bautista-Santiago’s 2 15-73124 withholding of removal claim fails. Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Bautista- Santiago’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073; see also Delgado-Ortiz, 600 F.3d at 1152 (“Petitioners’ generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is not particular to Petitioners and is insufficient to meet this standard.”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 15-73124 15-73124 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Genaro Bautista-Santiago v. Jefferson Sessions 22 November 2017 Agency Unpublished 39793a73c66ec7dba3d79b7b5a7a9c596968c0e5
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals