Jose Ernesto Rivera v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ERNESTO RIVERA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70897
Agency No. A095-006-059
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Jose Ernesto Rivera, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
* 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
FEB 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-70897
agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Rivera applied for asylum
within a reasonable time of any changed or extraordinary circumstances as to
excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4),
(5).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rivera failed
to establish a nexus between the harm he suffered or fears and a protected ground.
See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide
some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); see also 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, his withholding of removal claim
fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Rivera failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --