Manuel De Jesus Rivera Romero v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANUEL DE JESUS RIVERA ROMERO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-70002
Agency No. A092-567-384
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Manuel de Jesus Rivera Romero, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
* 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
JUN 28 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-70002
Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Arrey v. Barr, 916
F.3d 1149, 1157 (9th Cir. 2019). We review de novo questions of law and
constitutional claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.
2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Rivera Romero established
changed circumstances to excuse his untimely filed asylum application. See Singh
v. Holder, 649 F.3d 1161, 1164-65 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (court retained
jurisdiction to review legal or constitutional questions related to the one-year filing
deadline); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(2), (4) (changed circumstances). Thus, Rivera
Romero’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rivera
Romero failed to establish the harm he fears 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”). Thus, Rivera
Romero’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Rivera Romero failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-70002
Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We lack jurisdiction to review Rivera Romero’s claims that the IJ
misconstrued and misapplied evidence and that the IJ lacked jurisdiction over his
proceedings because he did not exhaust them before the agency. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (no subject-matter jurisdiction over
claims not presented in administrative proceedings below).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --