HUGO RAMIREZ-MENDOZA V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 15-73291 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HUGO RAMIREZ-MENDOZA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-73291 Agency No. A206-264-278 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 15, 2019** Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Hugo Ramirez-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence * 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). the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if credible, Ramirez-Mendoza failed to establish he would be persecuted 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”). To the extent Ramirez-Mendoza asserts he is a member of the particular social group of family, we lack jurisdiction to consider this claim as he failed to raise it before the BIA. 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, RamirezMendoza’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Ramirez-Mendoza failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). The government’s motion for reconsideration (Docket Entry No. 30) is 2 15-73291 denied as moot. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 15-73291
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.
