Bulmaro Martinez Gorduno v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BULMARO MARTINEZ GORDUNO,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
Nos. 15-71856
15-73701
Agency No. A088-890-401
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Bulmaro Martinez Gorduno, a
native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
decision denying withholding of removal and ordering him removed, and denying
his motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
* 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
APR 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-71856, 15-73701
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a
motion to reopen, and we review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petitions for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of
removal, where Martinez Gorduno failed to show it is more likely than not that he
would be persecuted on account of a protected ground in Mexico. See Delgado-
Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant must
generally show an individualized, rather than a generalized, risk of persecution to
establish eligibility for asylum or withholding; “returning Mexicans from the
United States” is too broad to qualify as a cognizable social group); Zetino v.
Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (desire to be free of harassment by
criminals motivated by theft or random violence has no nexus to a protected
ground); Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2001) (personal
disputes are not grounds for protection unless connected to a protected ground).
The BIA did not err or abuse its discretion in denying Martinez Gorduno’s
motion to reopen, where neither the BIA nor the IJ has jurisdiction over a U Visa
petition and an outstanding removal order does not bar U Visa relief. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.2(a); Lee v. Holder, 599 F.3d 973, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2010) (USCIS has “sole
jurisdiction” over claims of eligibility for a U visa pursuant to 8 C.F.R.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-71856, 15-73701
§ 214.14(c)(1)); Gomez-Valezco v. Sessions, 879 F.3d 989, 995 (9th Cir. 2018)
(noting that U visas may be granted even after issuance of a removal order).
To the extent Martinez Gorduno contends the BIA ignored his arguments,
the record does not support this contention. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d
983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --