Juan Jesus Banda-Huerta v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN JESUS BANDA-HUERTA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73809
Agency No. A205-647-890
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.
Juan Jesus Banda-Huerta, 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 2 --

2 16-73809
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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Banda-Huerta
failed to establish that any harm his family experienced or that he fears in Mexico
was or 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”). We do not address Banda-Huerta’s contentions as to his
alleged membership in or the cognizability of the social group of his family,
because the BIA did not rely on these bases in denying relief. See Santiago-
Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision
of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, in the absence of a nexus to a
protected ground, Banda-Huerta’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Banda-Huerta failed to show 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. See
Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 2016).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --