United States v. 2020-03-09 | 15-71483 | DANIEL JAQUEZ DURON V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL JAQUEZ DURON, AKA Daniel
Duron Jaquez,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-71483

Agency No. A200-824-849

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 3, 2020
**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Jaquez Duron, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of
removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and voluntary

*
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

MAR 9 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2
departure. 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 determination that Jaquez Duron
failed to establish past persecution. See Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018,
1023 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant who alleges past persecution has the burden of
proving that the treatment rises to the level of persecution). Substantial evidence
also supports the agency’s conclusion that Jaquez Duron failed to establish he
would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,
502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive],
direct or circumstantial”); see also 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”).
Thus, Jaquez Duron’s withholding of removal claim fails.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Jaquez Duron’s contentions regarding his
fear of persecution on account of an imputed political opinion, nationality, and
newly proposed particular social groups because they were not raised to the
agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks
jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). In addition, we lack

3
jurisdiction to consider Jaquez Duron’s contentions that the IJ erred in denying
voluntary departure. Id.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Jaquez Duron failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture).
We reject Jaquez Duron’s contentions that the agency failed to consider
evidence and erred in its analysis of his case.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.