Jorge Martinez v. Eric Holder, Jr.

599 F. App'x 289
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 19, 2015
Docket10-73015
StatusUnpublished

This text of 599 F. App'x 289 (Jorge Martinez v. Eric Holder, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jorge Martinez v. Eric Holder, Jr., 599 F. App'x 289 (9th Cir. 2015).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jorge Martinez, 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 application for withholding of removal and protection 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. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez’s challenge to the agency’s discretionary denial of his application for voluntary departure. See Esquivel-Garcia v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1025, 1030 (9th Cir.2010).

Substantial evidence supports both the BIA’s determination that Martinez failed to establish a nexus between any harm he suffered and fears and a protected ground, see Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.2010) (a “desire to be free from ... random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”), and the BIA’s finding that he failed to show it is more likely than not any harm would occur, see Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir.2003) (future persecution too speculative). Thus, Martinez’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Martinez’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador if returned. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir.2008). Thus, Martinez’s CAT claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

This disposition is not- appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Zetino v. Holder
622 F.3d 1007 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Silaya v. Mukasey
524 F.3d 1066 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Esquivel-Garcia v. Holder
593 F.3d 1025 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
599 F. App'x 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jorge-martinez-v-eric-holder-jr-ca9-2015.