RIGOBERTO LOPEZ ROMERO, AKA Javier Macias, AKA Rigo Lopez Romeo v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RIGOBERTO LOPEZ ROMERO, AKA
Javier Macias, AKA Rigo Lopez Romeo,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71645
Agency No. A205-313-082
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 2, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, KOH, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Rigoberto Lopez Romero, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding
* 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 9 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-71645
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1
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 agency’s conclusion that Lopez Romero
failed to establish that he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected
ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding no
nexus to a protected ground where applicant feared returning to his home country
because gunmen, motivated by a desire to steal his grandfather’s land, murdered
his family members); Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir.
2001) (personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground).
Accordingly, Lopez Romero’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Lopez Romero 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 Guatemala.
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
1 Lopez Romero does not challenge the agency’s determination that his
application for asylum was time barred.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-71645
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --