JOSE ESTRADA HERNANDEZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-71422 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JUN 30 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE ALFREDO ESTRADA HERNANDEZ, No. 14-71422 Agency No. A200-758-094 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 22, 2015** Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Jose Alfredo Estrada Hernandez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Estrada Hernandez did not establish a clear probability of future persecution on account of a protected ground if returned to Guatemala. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[a]n alien’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 Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”). Thus, we deny Estrada Hernandez’s petition as to his withholding of removal claim. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Estrada Hernandez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government if returned to Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, we deny Estrada Hernandez’s petition as to his CAT claim as well. 2 14-71422 We lack jurisdiction over Estrada Hernandez’s hardship and due process contentions because he did raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). Finally, Estrada Hernandez’s challenge to the conditions of his bond is not properly before us. See, e.g., Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (clarifying the proper procedure for challenging a Casas-Castrillon bond determination). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 14-71422
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
