MARIO ALBERTO VERDUZCO-GOMEZ, AKA Mario Gomez, AKA Mario Alberto Gomez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIO ALBERTO VERDUZCO-GOMEZ,
AKA Mario Gomez, AKA Mario Alberto
Gomez,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-74050
Agency No. A095-759-541
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Mario Alberto Verduzco-Gomez, 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 asylum,
* 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 15 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-74050
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238,
1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Verduzco-Gomez
established changed circumstances to excuse his untimely filed asylum application.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2), (4). Thus, Verduzco-
Gomez’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Verduzco-
Gomez failed to establish the harm he fears would be on account of a protected
ground. See 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”);
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”).
To the extent Verduzco-Gomez raises a family-based particular social group,
we lack jurisdiction to consider it 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).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-74050
Thus, Verduzco-Gomez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Verduzco-Gomez failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as unsupported by the record Verduzco-Gomez’s contentions that
the agency applied an incorrect standard, ignored evidence, or otherwise erred in
the analysis of his claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --