Alvaro Garcia-Jimenez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ALVARO GARCIA-JIMENEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73335
Agency No. A089-854-491
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 1, 2013**
Before: GRABER, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Alvaro Garcia-Jimenez, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
FILED
AUG 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-73335 2
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for
substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006),
and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s finding that Petitioner’s asylum
application was untimely filed, because he failed to exhaust his arguments
regarding the exceptions to the time bar. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal,
because any harm that occurred had no nexus to a protected ground. See Barrios v.
Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009); Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d
855, 858-62 (9th Cir. 2009). We lack jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s argument
regarding successful families as a social group because he failed to exhaust that
argument. See Barron, 358 F.3d at 677-78.
Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief, because Petitioner
failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if he
returns to Mexico. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --