MAURICIO LOPEZ-ANGELES, AKA Mauricio Lopez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAURICIO LOPEZ-ANGELES, AKA
Mauricio Lopez,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-70000
Agency No. A087-777-705
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Mauricio Lopez-Angeles, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
NOV 24 2015
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 2 --

jurisdiction under 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 we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Lopez-Angeles did not
establish past persecution or that it is more likely than not he will be persecuted in
Mexico on account of a protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d
734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009) (“to demonstrate that a protected ground was ‘at least one
central reason’ for persecution, an applicant must prove that such ground was a
cause of the persecutors’ acts”); see also Gormley v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177
(9th Cir. 2004) (random criminal acts bore no nexus to a protected ground); 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”). Thus, Lopez-Angeles’
withholding of removal claim fails. See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1016.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of Lopez-Angeles’ CAT
claim because he failed to establish 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 Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
15-70000 2

-- 2 of 2 --