Lorena Lizabeth Barillas Galindo v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LORENA LIZABETH BARILLAS
GALINDO,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-74040
Agency No. A200-0247-260
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Lorena Lizabeth Barillas Galindo, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum
and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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).
FILED
DEC 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-74040
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Barillas Galindo established
extraordinary or changed circumstances to excuse her untimely asylum application.
See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088, 1091-92
(9th Cir. 2010). Thus, we deny the petition as to asylum.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Barillas Galindo’s contentions as to past
persecution. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court
lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Barillas Galindo
failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears and 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.”). Thus, Barillas Galindo’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --