NATANAEL BARRIOS-ALVAREZ V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 13-71237 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOV 25 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NATANAEL BARRIOS-ALVAREZ, Petitioner, No. 13-71237 Agency No. A087-858-085 v. MEMORANDUM* LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 18, 2015** Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Natanael Barrios-Alvarez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and * 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). cancellation of removal. 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 we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. We deny the petition with respect to Barrios-Alvarez’s asylum claim because the record does not compel the conclusion that he established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see also Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2010). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Barrios-Alvarez failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be persecuted in Guatemala on account of a protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740-41 (9th Cir. 2009) (applicant must prove that a protected ground will be at least ‘one central reason’ for the persecutors’ acts); 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”); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility of future persecution too speculative). We reject Barrios-Alvarez’s contention that the BIA’s analysis was insufficient. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 2 13-71237 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, Barrios-Alvarez’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Barrios-Alvarez’s CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government if returned. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s finding that BarriosAlvarez failed to demonstrate the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to qualify for cancellation of removal. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2005). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 13-71237
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.
