Lindolfo Alvarenga-Torres v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LINDOLFO ALVARENGA-TORRES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71430
Agency No. A070-942-172
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 9, 2012**
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Lindolfo Alvarenga-Torres, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to
remand and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying
his application for cancellation of removal, asylum, and withholding of removal.
FILED
OCT 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-71430 2
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
discretion denials of motions to remand, de Jesus Melendez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d
1019, 1023 (9th Cir. 2007), and for substantial evidence factual findings, Zehatye
v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny
in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that
Alvarenga-Torres failed to make the requisite showing of exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship to be eligible for cancellation of removal. See
Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2005). We reject
Alvarenga-Torres’s contention that it was impermissible for the agency to consider
potential alternative means of immigrating to the United States in its hardship
determination. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition as to Alvarenga-Torres’s
cancellation of removal claim.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Alvarenga-Torres’s motion
to remand based on its determination that the evidence of hardship Alvarenga-
Torres submitted was insufficient to establish a prima facie case for cancellation of
removal. See Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir. 2010). Alvarenga-
Torres’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider the hardship evidence

-- 2 of 3 --

09-71430 3
cumulatively, mischaracterized evidence, and applied an incorrect hardship
standard are not supported by the record.
Substantial evidence supports the agency finding that Alvarenga-Torres
failed to show past persecution or a fear of future persecution on account of a
protected ground. See Cruz-Navarro v. INS, 232 F.3d 1024, 1029 (9th Cir. 2000)
(no evidence to show that guerillas imputed contrary political opinion to Peruvian
police officer); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“[a]n alien’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.”).
Accordingly, Alvarenga-Torres’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
See Ochoa v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --