Juan Carmona-Rojas v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN CARMONA-ROJAS,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72741
Agency No. A098-761-930
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Juan Carmona-Rojas, 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 withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
* 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
OCT 31 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-72741
the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.
2008). We deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Carmona-Rojas does not challenge the agency’s
determination that he failed to establish past persecution. See Corro-Barragan v.
Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening
brief resulted in waiver). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination
that Carmona-Rojas has not established that it is more likely than not he will be
persecuted in Mexico on account of his family membership. 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 has no nexus to
a protected ground”). We reject Carmona-Rojas’s contention that the BIA failed to
properly analyze his withholding of removal claim in light of recent case law.
Thus, we deny the petition for review as to his withholding of removal claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --