Felix Inocente-Hernandez v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 584 F. App'x 884 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           OCT 2 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    FELIX INOCENTE-HERNANDEZ,                         No. 10-71413
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A094-812-528
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted September 23, 2014**
    Before:        W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    Felix Inocente-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
    review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal
    from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of
    removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review for substantial evidence factual
    findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 
    453 F.3d 1182
    , 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny
    the petition for review.
    Inocente-Hernandez contends he established a nexus to a protected ground
    based on his membership in a proposed social group of small landowners.
    Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Inocente-Hernandez failed
    to establish any past or future harm was or would be on account of a protected
    ground. See Parussimova v. Mukasey, 
    555 F.3d 734
    , 740 (9th Cir. 2009) (the
    REAL ID Act “requires that a protected ground represent ‘one central reason’ for
    an asylum applicant’s persecution”); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 
    502 U.S. 478
    , 483
    (1992) (petitioner failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground). In the absence
    of a nexus to a protected ground, Inocente-Hernandez’s withholding of removal
    claim fails. See Zehatye, 
    453 F.3d at 1190
     (to qualify for withholding of removal,
    petitioner must show it is more likely than not he would be subjected to
    persecution on account of a protected ground).
    Finally, Inocente-Hernandez does not substantively challenge the agency’s
    denial of CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 
    94 F.3d 1256
    , 1259-60 (9th
    Cir. 1996) (issues not supported by argument are deemed waived).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    2                                    10-71413