Urbano Cazarez-Acosta v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
URBANO CAZAREZ-ACOSTA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70769
Agency No. A205-297-822
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Urbano Cazarez-Acosta, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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”). We have
* 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 15 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-70769
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Cazarez-Acosta established
changed circumstances to excuse his untimely asylum application. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.4(a)(4). Thus, Cazarez-Acosta’s asylum claim fails.
Cazarez-Acosta fears harm in Mexico based on his family membership and
as an Americanized returnee. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that Cazarez-Acosta failed to establish a nexus between the harm he
fears and 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.”). Thus, Cazarez-Acosta’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Cazarez-Acosta failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject Cazarez-Acosta’s contention that the agency failed to consider

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-70769
evidence of country conditions in Mexico.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --