Antonio Leon-Andres v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 14 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTONIO LEON-ANDRES, No. 19-70511
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-818-033
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an
Order of the Immigration Judge
Submitted May 6, 2020**
Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Antonio Leon-Andres, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in
Guatemala, and is thus not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an IJ’s negative reasonable
*
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).
fear determination for substantial evidence. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d
829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Leon-Andres failed
to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution in Guatemala 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”); see
also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner’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”).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Leon-Andres
failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or
acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See Garcia-Milian v.
Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that petitioner did not
establish the necessary state action for CAT relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 19-70511