GUSTAVO CHAN-GOMEZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-72934 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 22 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GUSTAVO ALFREDO CHAN-GOMEZ, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-72934 Agency No. A088-807-223 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Gustavo Alfredo Chan-Gomez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against * 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). Torture (“CAT”). Our 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. Chan-Gomez states he did not suffer past persecution, but contends he established a well-founded fear of future persecution based on the incidents of harm to various family members. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Chan-Gomez failed to establish he will be targeted on account of a protected ground if returned to Guatemala. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); 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.”). We reject Chan-Gomez’s contention that the IJ erred in its analysis of his political opinion claim, or that the BIA erred by summarily affirming the IJ’s decision. Thus, Chan-Gomez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1015-16. Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Chan-Gomez’s contention regarding 2 14-72934 his CAT claim because he failed to raise this issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings below). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 14-72934

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.