Lamberto Martinez-Dominguez v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAMBERTO MARTINEZ-DOMINGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72820
Agency No. A205-255-286
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Lamberto Martinez-Dominguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
* 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
OCT 26 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-72820
We have jurisdiction under 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 the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Martinez-Dominguez
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) (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”); see also Ayala v. Holder,
640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social
group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be
on account of his membership in such group”) (emphasis in original). Thus,
Martinez-Dominguez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Martinez-Dominguez failed to show that it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. See
Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049 (9th Cir. 2013) (evidence did not
compel the conclusion that it was more likely than not that the petitioner would be
tortured upon return).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --