Luis Manuel Murillo-Linares v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS MANUEL MURILLO-LINARES,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73583
Agency No. A089-926-172
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 7, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Luis Murillo-Linares, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (BIA) order denying his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction
FILED
AUG 28 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-
85 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Murillo-Linares
failed to establish he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See
Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (a personal dispute,
standing alone, does not constitute persecution based on a protected ground);
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”). Thus, Murillo-Linares’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Murillo-Linares
did not establish that he is more likely than not to 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --