Sergio Gomez-Gonzalez, Aka Javier Gomez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SERGIO GOMEZ-GONZALEZ, AKA
JAVIER GOMEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71893
Agency No. A200-690-703
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Sergio Gomez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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,
* 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).
FILED
NOV 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 13-71893
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law and for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Gomez-Gonzalez
established changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing
of his asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); see also Ramadan v.
Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656-58 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Thus, we deny the
petition as to Gomez-Gonzalez’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Gomez-Gonzalez
failed to establish the harm he suffered or feared was or would be on account of a
protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011) (per
curiam) (evidence demonstrated former officer was shot at and threatened because
he had arrested particular criminal, not on account of his status as a former police
officer); see also 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”). Thus, Gomez-Gonzalez’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

-- 2 of 3 --

3 13-71893
Gomez-Gonzalez failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El
Salvador. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Gomez-Gonzalez's contention that his case
warrants a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v.
Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (order). We also lack jurisdiction to
consider Gomez-Gonzalez’s contentions regarding eligibility for cancellation of
removal because he withdrew this application before the agency. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (no jurisdiction over legal claims
not presented in administrative proceedings below). Finally, the court lacks
jurisdiction to consider Gomez-Gonzalez’s contention regarding reopening, as he
did not present a request for reopening before the agency. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --