Jose Alfredo Estrada Hernandez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ALFREDO ESTRADA
HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71422
Agency No. A200-758-094
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Alfredo Estrada Hernandez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
FILED
JUN 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 --

jurisdiction is 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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Estrada Hernandez
did not establish a clear probability of future persecution on account of a protected
ground if returned to Guatemala. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th
Cir. 2010) (“[a]n alien’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”); 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, we deny Estrada Hernandez’s petition
as to his withholding of removal claim.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Estrada Hernandez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government if returned to
Guatemala. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, we
deny Estrada Hernandez’s petition as to his CAT claim as well.
14-71422 2

-- 2 of 3 --

We lack jurisdiction over Estrada Hernandez’s hardship and due process
contentions because he did raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
Finally, Estrada Hernandez’s challenge to the conditions of his bond is not
properly before us. See, e.g., Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir.
2011) (clarifying the proper procedure for challenging a Casas-Castrillon bond
determination).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
14-71422 3

-- 3 of 3 --