JOSE PEREZ ROBLES, AKA Perez Robles Jose v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE PEREZ ROBLES, AKA Perez Robles
Jose,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72871
Agency No. A208-081-896
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Jose Perez Robles, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture
* 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
NOV 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-72871
(“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. 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.
Because Perez Robles does not challenge the agency’s determination that his
asylum application is untimely, or the denial of CAT protection, these issues are
waived. See Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1125 n.1 (9th Cir. 2015) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we
deny the petition for review as to Perez Robles’s asylum and CAT claims.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Perez Robles
failed to establish he was or 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”); 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, Perez Robles’s withholding of removal claim fails.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Perez Robles’s contentions regarding his
eligibility for cancellation of removal because he failed to challenge the IJ’s
hardship finding before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78
(9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-72871
agency).
We reject as unsupported by the record Perez Robles’s contentions that he
was improperly denied adjustment of status and that the IJ did not provide him
with an application for cancellation of removal.
We deny Perez Robles’s request for voluntary departure to be reinstated
where he has not shown error in the BIA’s determination that he failed to provide
proof of bond payment as required under 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(c)(3)(ii).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --