EDIBERTO MUJO-HERNANDEZ V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 16-70026 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 21 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDIBERTO MUJO-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-70026 Agency No. A200-149-676 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 15, 2017** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Ediberto Mujo-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is * 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). 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). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review Mujo-Hernandez’s contentions regarding any social group that he articulates for the first time on appeal and his contention as to a pattern and practice of persecution. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 67778 (9th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional). We do not consider any materials Mujo-Hernandez referenced in his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (court’s review is limited to the administrative record). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that MujoHernandez failed to establish a nexus between the harm he suffered and fears and a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (desire to be free from harassment or random violence has no nexus to a protected ground). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Mujo-Hernandez failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured 2 16-70026 by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 3 16-70026
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.
