RONALD ALCIDES-BERRIOS, AKA Ronald Berrios Gonzalez v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD ALCIDES-BERRIOS, AKA
Ronald Berrios Gonzalez,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70531
Agency No. A095-136-718
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ronald Alcides-Berrios, 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 cancellation of
removal, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
* 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
MAR 15 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-70531
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755
F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We review de novo constitutional claims.
Arteaga-De Alvarez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 730, 735 (9th Cir. 2012). We dismiss in
part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination of
Alcides-Berrios’s cancellation of removal claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i);
see also Arteaga-De Alvarez, 704 F.3d at 736 (court lacks jurisdiction to review
merits of hardship determination and only retains jurisdiction over constitutional
claims that have “some possible validity”) (citation omitted).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Alcides-
Berrios failed to establish that any harm he experienced or fears in El Salvador was
or would be on account of 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.”); see also Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747
(9th Cir. 2008) (evidence supported conclusion that gang victimized petitioner for
economic and personal reasons rather than on account of a protected ground)

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-70531
abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093
(9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Thus, Alcides-Berrios’s withholding of removal claim
fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Alcides-Berrios failed to show it is more likely than not he would 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).
Alcides-Berrios’s requests to terminate removal proceedings or to hold his
case in abeyance are denied. See Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62
(9th Cir. 2019) (initial notice to appear need not include time and date information
to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --