Fredy Amilcar Gonzalez- Arroyo, a.k.a. Freddy Amilcar Gonzalez-Arroyo v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FREDY AMILCAR GONZALEZ-
ARROYO, a.k.a. Freddy Amilcar
Gonzalez-Arroyo,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-71151
Agency No. A029-180-823
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2013**
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Fredy Amilcar Gonzalez-Arroyo, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
OCT 25 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, and review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738,
742 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The agency correctly determined that Gonzalez-Arroyo’s conviction for
violating California Penal Code § 273.5(a) is categorically an aggravated felony
crime of violence under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(F), where he was sentenced to a
term of imprisonment of at least one year. See Banuelos-Ayon v. Holder, 611 F.3d
1080, 1083 (9th Cir. 2010); see also United States v. Gonzalez-Tamariz, 310 F.3d
1168, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 2002) (an offense classified as a misdemeanor under state
law may be considered an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43));
Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2005) (aggravated
felony definition applies to convictions entered “before, on, or after” the enactment
of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996).
Gonzalez-Arroyo is therefore statutorily ineligible for asylum and relief under the
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), (B)(i); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.61(b). Accordingly, we need not reach
Gonzalez-Arroyo’s remaining contentions concerning his eligibility for these
forms of relief.
12-71151 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gonzalez-
Arroyo failed to establish the requisite nexus between any harm he fears and a
protected ground for the purpose of withholding of removal. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(b)(3); Santos-Lemus, 542 F.3d at 747 (resistance to gang recruitment
efforts does not, without more, constitute a political opinion); see also Zetino v.
Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An 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.”).
Finally, Gonzalez-Arroyo failed to raise, and therefore waived, any
challenge to the agency’s determination that he did not challenge on appeal the
denial of his claim for Convention Against Torture relief. See Rizk v. Holder, 629
F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (petitioner waives an issue by failing to raise it
in the opening brief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-71151 3

-- 3 of 3 --