Hector Pelico-Huox v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HECTOR PELICO-HUOX,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72467
Agency No. A087-595-504
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2019**
Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Hector Pelico-Huox, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
* 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
APR 24 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-72467
the agency’s factual findings and we review de novo questions of law. Bhattarai v.
Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Pelico-Huox’s contentions regarding
asylum because he failed to raise the issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not
presented to the agency).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Pelico-Huox
failed to establish that the harm he experienced and fears in Guatemala was or will
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 Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011)
(even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must
still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such
group”). Thus, Pelico-Huox’s withholding of removal claim fails.
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Pelico-Huox’s contentions
regarding the cognizability of his proposed social groups.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-72467
Finally, we reject Pelico-Huox’s contention that the immigration court
lacked jurisdiction over his case. 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 DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --