JOEL CAZOLES-PEDRAZA V. ROBERT WILKINSON, No. 15-71012 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 19 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOEL MARTIN CAZOLES-PEDRAZA, AKA Joel Martin Cazolespedraza, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-71012 Agency No. A201-238-000 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 16, 2021** Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Joel Martin Cazoles-Pedraza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial * 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). evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that CazolesPedraza failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution on account of a protected ground. See 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 lack jurisdiction to consider Cazoles-Pedraza’s contention regarding domestic violence. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). Thus, CazolesPedraza’s withholding of removal claim fails. As stated in the court’s June 25, 2015 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 2 15-71012

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.