Jose De Jesus R. Alvarez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOSE DE JESUS R. ALVAREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70152
Agency No. A075-702-485
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jose De Jesus R. Alvarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
NOV 16 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

12-70152 2
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of asylum as a discretionary matter, Kalubi v. Ashcroft, 364
F.3d 1134, 1137 (9th Cir. 2004), and review for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We
deny the petition for review.
The BIA correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to review
Alvarez’s challenge to his bond proceedings. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(d); Matter of
P-C-M-, 20 I. & N. Dec. 432 (BIA 1991).
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Alvarez asylum as a
matter of discretion based on his criminal conviction for domestic violence. See
Kalubi, 364 F.3d at 1140-41.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s findings that Alvarez does not
qualify for withholding where he failed to establish that his fear of harm in Mexico
is based on a protected ground, and he failed to establish it is more likely than not
he will face future persecution if returned to Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(2);
Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (upholding the denial
of withholding of removal where the possibility of future persecution was
speculative).

-- 2 of 3 --

12-70152 3
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Alvarez is not
eligible for CAT relief where Alvarez failed to show it is more likely than not he
will be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011).
To the extent that the respondent seeks to renew its motion for summary
disposition, the motion is denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --