Victor Soriano-Jimenez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR SORIANO-JIMENEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73288
Agency No. A098-214-672
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an
Immigration Judge’s Decision
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Victor Soriano-Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a)
that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico, and thus
is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. Our jurisdiction is
* 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
OCT 6 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-73288
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual
findings. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Soriano-Jimenez
failed to demonstrate a reasonable fear of persecution on account of a protected
ground. See 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.”).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Soriano-
Jimenez failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Andrade-Garcia, 828
F.3d at 836-37. Thus, Soriano-Jimenez’s challenges to the IJ’s negative reasonable
fear determination fail.
We do not consider the materials Soriano-Jimenez references and attached to
his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS,
79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --