Jaime Arturo Valdez-Reyes v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAIME ARTURO VALDEZ-REYES,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-74128
Agency No. A201-288-309
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 25, 2015**
Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jaime Arturo Valdez-Reyes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
SEP 04 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence 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 Valdez-Reyes
did not establish that he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground.
See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner’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”); see also 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”). Thus, we deny Valdez-Reyes’ petition as to his asylum and
withholding of removal claims.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Valdez-Reyes 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
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, we deny Valdez-
Reyes’ petition as to his CAT claim.
13-74128 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Valdez-Reyes’ cancellation of
removal claim because he did not exhaust it before the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
13-74128 3

-- 3 of 3 --