Luis Pleitez Escobar v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 11 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS ENRIQUE PLEITEZ ESCOBAR, No. 16-71682
AKA Luis Enrique Pleitez,
Agency No. A095-787-051
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted on September 8, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Luis Enrique Pleitez Escobar, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
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 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).
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755
F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Pleitez
Escobar failed to establish the harm he experienced or fears in El Salvador was or
would be on account of his family membership. 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”); see also Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir.
2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant
must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in
such group”). Thus, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
As to CAT, Pleitez Escobar does not challenge the BIA’s waiver
determination, see Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996)
(issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived),
and we lack jurisdiction to consider Pleitez Escobar’s arguments concerning the
merits of his CAT claim, 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 stated in the court’s August 19, 2016 order, the temporary stay of
2 16-71682
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 16-71682