Mauricio Lopez-Cruz v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAURICIO LOPEZ-CRUZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73421
Agency No. A087-596-081
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2015**
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Mauricio Lopez-Cruz, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
FILED
MAY 26 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.
2008), and we deny the petition for review.
Lopez-Cruz does not challenge the agency’s determination that his untimely
asylum application was not excused by changed or extraordinary circumstances.
See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
supported by argument are deemed abandoned). In light of this dispositive
determination, we do not reach Lopez-Cruz’s contentions regarding the merits of
his asylum claim, and deny the petition as to Lopez-Cruz’s asylum claim.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Lopez-Cruz’s contention that he established
past persecution in part based on harm to his family members. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review
claims not raised to the agency). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that Lopez-Cruz failed to establish he suffered harm rising to the
level of persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir.
2009) (record did not compel conclusion that discriminatory mistreatment of
petitioner amounted to persecution). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s
determination that Lopez-Cruz failed to establish that it is more likely than not he
will be persecuted if returned to Mexico. See Singh v. INS, 134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th
2 12-73421

-- 2 of 3 --

Cir. 1998) (petitioner must show risk more specific than a “generalized or random
possibility of persecution”); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th
Cir. 2010) (petitioner’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”). In light of our conclusion regarding the BIA’s findings, we reject
Lopez-Cruz’s request for remand. Thus, we deny the petition as to Lopez-Cruz’s
withholding of removal claim.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Lopez-Cruz failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Mexico. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-73421

-- 3 of 3 --