SALVADOR ANTONIO VILLANUEVA- MARTINEZ, AKA Martinez Salvador v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SALVADOR ANTONIO VILLANUEVA-
MARTINEZ, AKA Martinez Salvador,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-72410
Agency No. A206-784-667
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Salvador Antonio Villanueva-Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
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”).
* 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
APR 15 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-72410
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th
Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determinations that Villanueva-
Martinez failed to file his asylum application within the one-year time limit and did
not establish changed or extraordinary circumstances sufficient to excuse the
untimely filing. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (D); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)-(5);
see also Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 657-58 (9th Cir. 2007). Thus,
Villanueva-Martinez’s asylum claim fails.
As to withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that the harm Villanueva-Martinez experienced did not rise to the
level of persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th
Cir. 2019) (concluding that the record did not compel a finding of harm rising to
the level of persecution where perpetrators took no violent actions against the
petitioner or his family beyond threats). Substantial evidence also supports the
agency’s determination that Villanueva-Martinez did not establish nexus between
the harm he fears and a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,
1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating that 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, his withholding of removal claim fails.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-72410
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Villanueva-Martinez 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 Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding
that petitioner did not establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief).
We reject as unsupported by the record Villanueva-Martinez’s contentions
that the agency erred or violated due process in analyzing his claims.
Villanueva-Martinez’s challenge to the agency’s jurisdiction is foreclosed by
Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (rejecting
contention that lack of hearing information in notice to appear deprived
immigration court of jurisdiction). His request for a stay of appellate proceedings,
included in his opening brief, is denied as moot.
All pending motions are denied.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --