JOEL MARTIN CAZOLES-PEDRAZA, AKA Joel Martin Cazolespedraza v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOEL MARTIN CAZOLES-PEDRAZA,
AKA Joel Martin Cazolespedraza,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71012
Agency No. A201-238-000
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Joel Martin Cazoles-Pedraza, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
* 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 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-71012
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026,
1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Cazoles-
Pedraza failed to establish a clear probability of future persecution 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”). We
lack jurisdiction to consider Cazoles-Pedraza’s contention regarding domestic
violence. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court
lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). Thus, Cazoles-
Pedraza’s withholding of removal claim fails.
As stated in the court’s June 25, 2015 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --