Carlos Eduardo Trancoso Ramirez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS EDUARDO TRANCOSO
RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71465
Agency No. A200-101-953
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Eduardo Trancoso Ramirez, 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 asylum, withholding
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
* 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 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-71465
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings and we review de novo questions of law. Mohammed
v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We dismiss in part and deny in
part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Trancoso Ramirez’s contentions regarding
his proposed social group that he raises for the first time in his opening brief. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust
issues or claims in administrative proceedings below).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Trancoso
Ramirez failed to establish that any harm he experienced or fears in Mexico was or
would be on account of a protected ground. See Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d
1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (a personal dispute, standing alone, does not constitute
persecution based on a protected ground); 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.”). We reject, as unsupported by the record, Trancoso
Ramirez’s contention that the agency violated his due process rights or otherwise
erred by failing to properly analyze his claims. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). Thus, in
the absence of a nexus to a protected ground, Trancoso Ramirez’s asylum and

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-71465
withholding of removal claims fail. See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1016.
Trancoso Ramirez does not challenge the agency’s determination that he
failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico, and therefore has
waived any such challenge. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir.
2011) (a petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it in the opening brief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --