DENNIS CHAVEZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-74010 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 20 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DENNIS ALEXANDER CHAVEZ, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-74010 Agency No. A205-720-498 MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Dennis Alexander Chavez, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We * 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). review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and de novo claims of due process violations, Rizo v. Lynch, 810 F.3d 688, 690 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Chavez failed to establish a nexus between his past experiences and his fear of future harm and a protected ground. See 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”); 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.”). We reject Chavez’s contention that the IJ violated his due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must show error to prevail on a due process claim). Thus, Chavez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 14-74010

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.