Eduardo Navarro-Rodriguez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDUARDO NAVARRO-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71363
Agency No. A088-884-456
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 22, 2015**
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Eduardo Navarro-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
FILED
APR 30 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 --

governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s
factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Even if Navarro-Rodriguez’s established an exception to excuse his
untimely asylum application, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that he failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future
persecution on account of a protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555
F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[T]o demonstrate that a protected ground was ‘at
least one central reason’ for persecution, an applicant must prove that such ground
was a cause of the persecutors’ acts.”); 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”). We lack jurisdiction to consider the social group contentions
that Navarro-Rodriguez raises for the first time in his opening brief. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (no jurisdiction over claims not
presented in administrative proceedings below). Thus, Navarro-Rodriguez’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d
1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2004).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Navarro-
11-71363 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Rodriguez’s CAT claim because he 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 v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
11-71363 3

-- 3 of 3 --