United States v. 2020-10-29 | 16-72677 | KEVIN HERNANDEZ-DELGADILLO V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KEVIN ALBERTO HERNANDEZ-
DELGADILLO, AKA Kevin Hernandez,
AKA Kevin Alberto Hernandez,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 16-72677

Agency No. A205-720-368

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 26, 2020
**

Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Kevin Alberto Hernandez-Delgadillo, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his
application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against

*
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 29 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 16-72677
Torture (“CAT”). 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 Hernandez-
Delgadillo failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a
protected ground. 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 bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus,
Hernandez-Delgadillo’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Hernandez-Delgadillo 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 Mexico.
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not address Hernandez-Delgadillo’s contentions as to the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination because the BIA did not reach that issue. See Santiago-
Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the
grounds relied on by the BIA).

3 16-72677
As stated in the court’s October 4, 2016 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.