Ari Adelfo Martinez-Macario v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARI ADELFO MARTINEZ-MACARIO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72615
Agency No. A200-201-854
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Ari Adelfo Martinez-Macario, 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 asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
* 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). Martinez-Macario’s request
for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
FILED
FEB 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-72615
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings and review de novo claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Martinez-
Macario failed to establish a nexus between past or future harm and a protected
ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (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,
Martinez-Macario’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Martinez-Macario failed to show it is more likely than not that he would
be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
To the extent Martinez-Macario alleges a due process violation, we reject as
unsupported by the record the contention that the agency violated his due process
rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (error is required to
prevail on a due process claim).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-72615
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --