ARVIN JOHANNE ALCON MARQUEZ, AKA Arvin Johanne Marquez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARVIN JOHANNE ALCON MARQUEZ,
AKA Arvin Johanne Marquez,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73672
Agency No. A206-407-319
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Arvin Johanne Alcon Marquez, a native and citizen of the Philippines,
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 protection under the Convention
FILED
JUL 28 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 --

Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 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). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Alcon Marquez
failed to establish that he was or would be persecuted on account of any protected
ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the
REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for
an asylum applicant’s persecution”); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th
Cir. 2010) (“[a]n 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”); Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2001)
(personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground). Thus,
Alcon Marquez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Alcon Marquez failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured at
the instigation of or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to the
Philippines. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
14-73672 2

-- 2 of 2 --