Daniel Hernandez Maceda v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL HERNANDEZ MACEDA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71120
Agency No. A208-600-718
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 10, 2018**
Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Daniel Hernandez Maceda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
* 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
JUL 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-71120
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the BIA’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We review de novo questions of law and claims of due process violations.
Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Hernandez Maceda
failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of 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, we deny Hernandez
Maceda’s petition as to his asylum and withholding of removal claims.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Hernandez Maceda failed to show that it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured upon his return to Mexico. See Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049
(9th Cir. 2013) (evidence did not compel the conclusion that it was more likely
than not that the petitioner would be tortured upon return).
Finally, we reject Hernandez Maceda’s contention that the IJ violated his
due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (requiring error and
prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --