LEYVER BLANCO-DOMINGUEZ, AKA Leyber Odyr Solorzano Dominguez v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEYVER BLANCO-DOMINGUEZ, AKA
Leyber Odyr Solorzano Dominguez,
Petitioner,
v.
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70495
Agency No. A206-104-720
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Leyver Blanco-Dominugez, a native and citizen of Honduras, 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
JAN 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-70495
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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Blanco-Dominguez
failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future persecution on account of an
enumerated ground. 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”). Thus,
in this case, Blanco-Dominguez’s asylum and withholding claims fail.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Blanco-Dominguez’s contentions regarding
CAT relief because he failed to raise the 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.

-- 2 of 2 --