Agustin Benavides v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AGUSTIN BENAVIDES,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71963
Agency No. A094-425-031
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Agustin Benavides, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding
of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 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
JUN 15 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-71963
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d
1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Benavides’s contentions regarding political
opinion that he raises for the first time in his opening brief. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or
claims in administrative proceedings below).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Benavides failed
to establish that the harm he experienced or fears in El Salvador was or would be
on account of a protected ground. See id. at 1016 (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”); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600
F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Asylum is not available to victims of
indiscriminate violence, unless they are singled out on account of a protected
ground.”). Thus, Benavides’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
PETITION FOR REVIEW IS DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --