Mario Rene Morales-Ortiz v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIO RENE MORALES-ORTIZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72985
Agency No. A088-383-984
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Mario Rene Morales-Ortiz, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
* 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 19 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 11-72985
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008), and review de novo due process claims, Larita-
Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2000). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
In denying Morales-Ortiz’s withholding of removal claim, the BIA
considered the particular social group he argued and concluded that he failed to
establish a causal nexus between a protected ground and the harm he suffered and
fears from gangs. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion. See INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (“[S]ince the statute makes motive
critical, [an applicant] must provide some evidence of it, direct or circumstantial.”).
Thus, Morales-Ortiz’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Morales-Ortiz’s CAT
claim because he failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. See Silaya,
524 F.3d at 1073. Thus, his CAT claim fails.
We lack jurisdiction to consider any challenges to the BIA’s November 30,
2011, order denying Morales-Ortiz’s motion to reconsider because he did not file a
petition for review of that decision. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1258 (9th Cir. 1996) (explaining that petitioner must file separate, timely petition

-- 2 of 3 --

3 11-72985
for review of order).
We reject Morales-Ortiz’s claim that the BIA violated his due process rights
by not reinstating a period of voluntary departure because the record reflects he
was properly notified of the requirement to submit timely proof of bond to the
BIA, but failed to do so. See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(c)(3); Larita-Martinez, 220 F.3d
at 1096 (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --