Isaias Anastacio Tzul v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISAIAS ANASTACIO TZUL,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-70645
Agency No. A208-944-917
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Isaias Anastacio Tzul, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection 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
APR 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-70645
(“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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Tzul failed to
establish he was persecuted on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of
[motive], direct or circumstantial”); see also 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”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination
that Tzul failed to establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution in
Guatemala. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (possibility
of future persecution “too speculative”); see also Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d
1083, 1094-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (fear of future persecution was not objectively
reasonable). Thus, Tzul’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Tzul 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 Guatemala. See
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-70645
torture).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Tzul’s contention that the IJ failed to
consider evidence 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).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --