Felipe Ibarra Moreno v. William Barr

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FELIPE DE JESUS IBARRA MORENO, No. 15-70144

Petitioner, Agency No. A075-111-778

v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 18, 2019**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Felipe de Jesus Ibarra Moreno, 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 applications for 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 agency’s factual

* 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). findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the

petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ibarra Moreno

failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he experienced or fears in Mexico

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”

(emphasis in original)); 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, Ibarra Moreno’s withholding of removal claim fails.

We do not reach Ibarra Moreno’s remaining contentions regarding

withholding of removal. See Recinos De Leon v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 1185, 1189

(9th Cir. 2005) (“We may affirm the [agency] only on grounds set forth in the

opinion under review.”).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Ibarra Moreno failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by

2 15-70144 or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 15-70144