Erick Gustavo Moreno-Nunez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERICK GUSTAVO MORENO-NUNEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-70757
Agency No. A205-147-182
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Erick Gustavo Moreno-Nunez, 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 asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
* 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).
FILED
JUN 15 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-70757
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 agency’s conclusion that Moreno-Nunez
failed to establish that the harm he fears in Mexico would be on account of a
protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992); 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”). We reject Moreno-Nunez’s contention that the BIA erred in
its social group analysis. Thus, Moreno-Nunez’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Moreno-Nunez failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Zheng v.
Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too
speculative).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --