Jorge Eduardo Jimenez-Araujo v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE EDUARDO JIMENEZ-ARAUJO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72792
Agency No. A097-911-262
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 14, 2013**
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Eduardo Jimenez-Araujo, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se 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 protection under the Convention Against
FILED
AUG 16 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-72792 2
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), and we deny the petition for review.
Jimenez-Araujo testified that he worked on a construction projected awarded
to his friend, the son of a government official. He further testified that
unsuccessful construction bidders threatened and harmed him because they were
upset that they did not win the construction project. The record does not compel
the conclusion that these threats or harm, or any future harm Jimenez-Araujo fears,
was or will be on account of a protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555
F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground
represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); see also INS
v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482 (1992) (“[T]he mere existence of a
generalized ‘political’ motive underlying [the persecutors’ actions] is inadequate to
establish . . . the proposition that [a petitioner] fears persecution on account of
political opinion, as §101(a)(42) requires.”). We reject Jimenez-Araujo’s
contention that the BIA failed to consider his arguments regarding nexus. See
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA “does not have
to write an exegesis on every contention”). In the absence of a nexus to a protected

-- 2 of 3 --

11-72792 3
ground, Jimenez-Araujo’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005).
Finally, Jimenez-Araujo failed to raise any substantive challenge to the
denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th
Cir. 1996) (issues not addressed in the argument portion of a brief are deemed
waived).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --