ENRIQUE DOQUE-LORENZANA V. LORETTA E. LYNCH, No. 14-73545 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED AUG 24 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ENRIQUE DOQUE-LORENZANA, AKA Enrique Henrry Duke, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-73545 Agency No. A201-114-227 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 16, 2016** Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. Enrique Doque-Lorenzana, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of * 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). removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that DoqueLorenzana failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution on account of an enumerated 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, 622 F.3d at 1016 (“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.”); Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001) (harm based on personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground). We reject Doque-Lorenzana’s contention that the agency erred in its analysis. Thus, Doque-Lorenzana’s withholding of removal claim fails. Finally, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Doque-Lorenzana failed to show it is more likely than not that he would 2 14-73545 be tortured by the Mexican government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 14-73545

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.