Gustavo Alfredo Chan-Gomez v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUSTAVO ALFREDO CHAN-GOMEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72934
Agency No. A088-807-223
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Gustavo Alfredo Chan-Gomez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
* 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
JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-72934
Torture (“CAT”). 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). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
Chan-Gomez states he did not suffer past persecution, but contends he
established a well-founded fear of future persecution based on the incidents of
harm to various family members. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s
determination that Chan-Gomez failed to establish he will be targeted on account
of a protected ground if returned to Guatemala. 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 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.”). We reject Chan-Gomez’s
contention that the IJ erred in its analysis of his political opinion claim, or that the
BIA erred by summarily affirming the IJ’s decision. Thus, Chan-Gomez’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail. See Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1015-16.
Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider Chan-Gomez’s contention regarding

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-72934
his CAT claim because he failed to raise this issue before the BIA. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or
claims in administrative proceedings below).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --