SALVADOR RODRIGUEZ-ROSALES V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 10-73600 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED OCT 20 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SALVADOR ERNESTO RODRIGUEZROSALES, No. 10-73600 Agency No. A098-801-926 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October, 14, 2015** Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Salvador Ernesto Rodriguez-Rosales, 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 asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the * 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). Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and denying his motion to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that RodriguezRosales failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground based on his experiences with gang members in El Salvador. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An 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, Rodriguez-Rosales’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1015-16. We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of Rodriguez-Rosales’s CAT claim because he failed to exhaust it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). 2 10-73600 Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Rosales’s motion to remand because he failed to demonstrate that his additional evidence was previously unavailable. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 10-73600
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.
