United States v. 2020-05-12 | 19-71899 | BORIS LOPEZ PALACIOS V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BORIS ADRIAN LOPEZ PALACIOS,
AKA Boris Palacios-Lopez,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-71899

Agency No. A213-019-851

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 6, 2020
**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Boris Adrian Lopez Palacios, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

*
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

MAY 12 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-71899
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-
85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we review de novo claims of due process violations in
immigration proceedings, Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lopez
Palacios failed to establish that the harm he experienced or fears was or would be
on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th
Cir. 2010) (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”); see also Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001)
(harm based on personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected
ground). Thus, Lopez Palacios’ withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Lopez Palacios failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at
1033-35 (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary “state action”
for CAT relief).

3 19-71899
Lopez Palacios’ contentions that the agency violated his due process rights
by limiting his testimony and failing to consider evidence fail. See Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process
claim).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Lopez Palacios’ contentions concerning his
criminal record because he failed to raise them before the agency. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review
claims not presented to the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.