Edgardo Antonio Ascencio Mejia v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDGARDO ANTONIO ASCENCIO
MEJIA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-72995
Agency No.
A216-554-670
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 26, 2024**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Edgardo Antonio Ascencio Mejia, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 29 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-72995
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ascencio
Mejia failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected
ground. 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”).
Because Ascencio Mejia failed to establish any nexus at all, he also failed to
satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch,
846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017).
Thus, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Ascencio Mejia 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 El
Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
Ascencio Mejia’s contentions regarding the Interpol Red Notice and
ineffective assistance of counsel are not properly before the court because he failed
to raise them before the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (exhaustion of
administrative remedies required); see also Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-72995
411, 417-19 (2023) (section 1252(d)(1) is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing
rule).
Ascencio Mejia’s claim the agency violated due process by denying him
access to counsel fails because he has not shown error. See Padilla-Martinez v.
Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a
petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”);
Usubakunov v. Garland, 16 F.4th 1299, 1303 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[N]oncitizens have
the right to counsel in removal proceedings, albeit not the right to counsel paid for
by the government.”).
Ascencio Mejia’s motion to supplement the opening brief (Docket Entry No.
27) is granted. The clerk will fill the supplemental brief received at Docket Entry
No. 28. The renewed requests for appointment of counsel and bond contained in
Docket Entry No. 28 are denied.
We do not consider the materials Ascencio Mejia references in his opening
brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955,
963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --