JOSE GARCES-PACHECO, AKA Jose Garzas-Pacheco, AKA Jose Pacheco-Garces v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE GARCES-PACHECO, AKA Jose
Garzas-Pacheco, AKA Jose Pacheco-Garces,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
Nos. 15-72617
16-71125
Agency No. A205-272-710
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N. R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Garces-Pacheco, 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 decision denying his application for withholding of removal
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and the BIA’s
* 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
AUG 27 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-72617
order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1050 (9th Cir. 2001). We review
for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597
F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Garces-
Pacheco failed to establish that any harm he experienced or fears in Mexico is on
account of a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097-98 (9th
Cir. 2011) (mistreatment motivated purely by personal retribution does not bear a
nexus to a protected ground); 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, we deny the petition for review as to Garces-Pacheco’s withholding of
removal claim.
Garces-Pacheco does not challenge the agency’s denial of his CAT claim.
See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we
deny the petition for review as to Garces-Pacheco’s CAT claim.
Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Garces-Pacheco’s
motion to reopen where Garces-Pacheco failed to establish prima facie eligibility

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-72617
for withholding of removal and protection under CAT. See Najmabadi, 597 F.3d
at 986 (the BIA acts within its discretion in denying a motion to reopen for failure
to establish a prima facie eligibility). Further, Garces-Pacheco points to no error in
the agency’s denial of administrative closure.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --