Melbourne Carlington Taylor v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MELBOURNE CARLINGTON
TAYLOR,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-73666
Agency No. A203-016-693
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges and ADELMAN,*** District
Judge.
FILED
FEB 23 2016
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).
*** The Honorable Lynn S. Adelman, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

Melbourne Taylor petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) decision affirming the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny his petition.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Taylor failed to
establish a nexus between his past persecution and his membership in a protected
class. While Taylor presents at least some evidence that he was politically
opposed to his persecutors, the record supports the BIA’s conclusion that he was
persecuted because he witnessed a crime and spoke to the police about it, not
because he held certain political opinions.1
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s finding that Taylor failed to
establish government acquiescence in his torture. The record shows that the
Jamaican police urged him to move to a safer location, then checked on him each
day to make sure he was safe. Additionally, they apprehended and prosecuted two
of the people involved in the murder he witnessed.
PETITION DENIED.
1 Because Taylor failed to argue to the BIA that he was persecuted for his
membership in a particular social group—namely, witnesses to crimes—we may
not consider this argument for the first time on his petition for review. Zara v.
Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir. 2004).

-- 2 of 2 --