ABRAHAM AGAEL CHAVEZ-MUNOZ, AKA Abraham Chavez, AKA Abrham A. Chavez, AKA Abraham… v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ABRAHAM AGAEL CHAVEZ-MUNOZ,
AKA Abraham Chavez, AKA Abrham A.
Chavez, AKA Abraham Gael Chavez-
Munoz,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72362
Agency No. A201-114-248
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 7, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Abraham Agael Chavez-Munoz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing Chavez-
Munoz’s appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Chavez-
* 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
AUG 28 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Munoz’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252
and deny the petition for review.
The agency found Chavez-Munoz failed to show a nexus between the harm
he fears and a protected ground. In his petition for review, Chavez-Munoz fails to
identify any protected ground, let alone offer an argument as to why the evidence
compels a conclusion contrary to the agency’s. See 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”). As this issue is dispositive, and Chavez-Munoz has
waived any argument based thereon, Chavez-Munoz’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–80 (9th
Cir. 2013) (failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Chavez-Munoz failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --