AMADOR LUEVANOS-GARCIA, AKA Guillermo Garcia Espinosa v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMADOR LUEVANOS-GARCIA, AKA
Guillermo Garcia Espinosa,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72944
Agency No. A090-344-153
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an
Immigration Judge’s Decision
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Amador Luevanos-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a)
that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico, and thus
is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-72944
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual
findings, Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016), and we
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Luevanos-Garcia
failed to establish a reasonable possibility of future persecution in Mexico on
account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.
2010) (“An [applicant’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.”).
Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that Luevanos-Garcia
failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or
acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836-
37.
We reject Luevanos-Garcia’s contention that the IJ failed to consider all of
his claims and evidence.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --