Jose Maria Reyes-Matul v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MARIA REYES-MATUL,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71975
Agency No. A070-039-313
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jose Maria Reyes-Matul, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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 and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
* 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
JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 14-71975
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Reyes-Matul
failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution in
Guatemala on account of a political opinion or imputed political opinion. See
Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1490-91 (9th Cir. 1997) (record did not compel a
finding that persecution occurred “on account of” political beliefs absent sufficient
direct or circumstantial evidence); 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.”) (internal citation omitted). Thus, Reyes-Matul’s asylum claim
fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of Reyes-Matul’s CAT
claim because he failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of any public official if returned to
Guatemala. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --