YORDY GRADOS-HINOJOSA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 12-74096 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 20 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YORDY JESUS GRADOS-HINOJOSA, Petitioner, No. 12-74096 Agency No. A088-735-064 v. MEMORANDUM* 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. Yordy Jesus Grados-Hinojosa, a native and citizen of Peru, 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 Torture * 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). (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 118485 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. Grados-Hinojosa does not challenge the BIA’s finding that he waived any challenge to the IJ’s dispositive determination that his asylum claim was untimely. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed abandoned). Thus, we deny the petition as to Grados-Hinojosa’s asylum claim. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Grados-Hinojosa did not establish past persecution, or that it is more likely than not he will be persecuted in the future, on account of a protected ground if returned to Peru. 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) (petitioner’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”). Thus, we deny the petition as to Grados-Hinojosa’s withholding of removal claim. Finally, Grados-Hinojosa does not raise any arguments challenging the 2 12-74096 agency’s denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 12-74096
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.
