Jorge Lopez-Aponte v. Loretta E. Lynch , 624 F. App'x 555 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 14 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE LUIS LOPEZ-APONTE, No. 13-72785
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-528-391
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Luis Lopez-Aponte, 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 asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). 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-
84 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Lopez-Aponte failed
to establish that any harm he fears due to his religious activities would be caused
by the Mexican government or that the government would be unwilling or unable
to control his attackers. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzalez, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th
Cir. 2005). Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Lopez-
Aponte’s fear of random violence and general crime does not provide a nexus to a
protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). The
record does not support Lopez-Aponte’s contention that the IJ found “criminal acts
by private individuals” cannot be persecution. We reject his contention that the IJ
did not give him the full benefit of his testimony. Thus, Lopez-Aponte’s asylum
claim fails.
Because Lopez-Aponte failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he has
necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.
Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief because Lopez-
Aponte did not establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured at the
2 13-72785
instigation of, or with the acquiescence of the Mexican government. See Silaya v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-72785