Fernando Rivera Leyva v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FERNANDO RIVERA LEYVA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71382
Agency No. A201-208-884
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Fernando Rivera Leyva, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
FILED
JUL 31 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. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.
2008). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Rivera Leyva testified that bandits assaulted him four times while working
as a taxi driver in Mexico, and that he fears he or his family members will be
kidnaped if he returns. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that, even
if Rivera Leyva demonstrated an exception to excuse his untimely application, he
failed to establish that he was or would be harmed on account of a protected
ground. See 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”); 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 Rivera Leyva’s contention
that the bandits were drug cartel members, and his contention regarding witnesses
as a social group because he did not raise them to the agency. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review
issues or claims not raised in administrative proceedings below). Thus, we deny
2 14-71382

-- 2 of 3 --

the petition as to his asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Zetino, 622
F.3d at 1015-16.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Rivera Leyva’s
CAT claim because he failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Mexico. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073. Rivera Leyva does not challenge the BIA’s
decision declining to consider the new evidence he submitted on appeal to the BIA,
see Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996), and we do not
consider it here, see Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 14-71382

-- 3 of 3 --