YOSHIO PAUL ESTRADA-DUQUE, AKA Yoshio Paul Estrada-Doque v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YOSHIO PAUL ESTRADA-DUQUE, AKA
Yoshio Paul Estrada-Doque,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70256
Agency No. A088-751-018
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Yoshio Paul Estrada-Duque, 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,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
* 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
MAY 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-70256
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th
Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Estrada-Duque does not challenge the agency’s dispositive finding that his
asylum application is time-barred, or raise any arguments challenging the agency’s
denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th
Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are
waived). Thus, we deny the petition as to Estrada-Duque’s asylum and CAT
claims.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Estrada-Duque
failed to establish that he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground.
See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (“imputed
wealthy Americans” not cognizable as a particular social group); Delgado-Oritz v.
Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (“returning Mexicans from the
United States” not cognizable as a particular social group); Zetino v. Holder, 622
F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (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, Estrada-Duque’s withholding of removal claim

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-70256
fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --