United States v. 2020-08-07 | 17-72064 | CIRILO LOPEZ-ORTEGA V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CIRILO LOPEZ-ORTEGA,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

Nos. 17-72064
19-71479

Agency No. A205-721-140

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 5, 2020
**

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated petitions for review, Cirilo Lopez-Ortega, 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 withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”), and the BIA’s order denying his motion to reopen. We review

*
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

AUG 7 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 17-72064 & 19-71479
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder,
755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We review for abuse of discretion the denial
of a motion to reopen. Toor v. Lynch, 789 F.3d 1055, 1059 (9th Cir. 2015). We
deny the petitions for review.
As to petition No. 17-72064, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that Lopez-Ortega failed to establish he suffered harm that rises to
the level of persecution. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (9th Cir.
2009). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Lopez-
Ortega failed to establish the harm he fears in Mexico would be on account of a
protected ground, including membership in a particular social group or a political
opinion. 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”); Barrios v.
Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting political opinion claim where
petitioner did not present sufficient evidence of political or ideological opposition
to the gang’s ideals or that the gang imputed a particular political belief to the
petitioner). Thus, Lopez-Ortega’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Lopez-Ortega failed to show 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

3 17-72064 & 19-71479
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
As to petition No. 19-71479, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
Lopez-Ortega’s motion to reopen and terminate. See Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958
F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (omission of certain information from notice to
appear can be cured for jurisdictional purposes by later hearing notice).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.