Simon Andres Acevedo- Ramirez v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SIMON ANDRES ACEVEDO-
RAMIREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-73897
Agency No. A200-952-711
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Simon Andres Acevedo-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
FILED
FEB 25 2014
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).
11-73897

-- 1 of 3 --

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and review de novo due process
claims. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011-12 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Acevedo-
Ramirez failed to establish past mistreatment or a fear of future mistreatment in
Colombia on account of a protected ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555
F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[t]he Real ID Act requires that a protected ground
represent ‘one central reason’ for an asylum applicant’s persecution”); Zetino, 622
F.3d at 1016 (“An alien’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.”). Consequently, his withholding of removal claim fails.
The BIA found Acevedo-Ramirez did not contest the IJ’s finding that his
asylum application was untimely and that no exception to the one-year filing
deadline applied. Acevedo-Ramirez does not challenge the BIA’s finding. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996). Even if his
asylum application were timely, Acevedo-Martinez’s asylum claim would fail. See
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i).
11-73897 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Acevedo-Martinez does not raise any substantive challenge to the denial of
his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259 (“[i]ssues raised in a brief
that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned”).
We reject Acevedo-Martinez’s due process contentions regarding the IJ’s
treatment of his claim. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).
Finally, we reject Acevedo-Martinez’s request for a remand.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
11-73897 3

-- 3 of 3 --