Jose Barrientos-Ruiz v. William Barr ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE MANUEL BARRIENTOS-RUIZ, No. 15-73143
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-194-451
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Jose Manuel Barrientos-Ruiz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
*
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).
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider the proposed social groups that Barrientos-
Ruiz raises for the first time in his opening brief. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented
to the agency).
As to Barrientos-Ruiz’s claim based on harm by gangs, substantial evidence
supports the agency’s determination that Barrientos-Ruiz failed to demonstrate that
the harm he experienced or fears was or would be on account of a protected
ground. See 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.”). As to
Barrientos-Ruiz’s claim based on harm by his aunt, substantial evidence supports
the agency’s determination that Barrientos-Ruiz failed to establish that the
government of El Salvador was or will be unable or unwilling to control the
perpetrator. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005)
(discussing petitioner’s burden to establish that the government was unwilling or
unable to control the persecution feared and finding the record did not compel that
conclusion). Thus, Barrientos-Ruiz’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
2 15-73143
fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Barrientos-Ruiz failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El
Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 15-73143