Orlando Menendez-Martinez v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ORLANDO MENENDEZ-MARTINEZ, No. 15-72172
AKA Luis Enrique Ruvalcaba Gonzalez,
Agency No. A200-965-764
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Orlando Menendez-Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from
an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir.
2020). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Menendez-
Martinez failed to establish the harm he experienced or fears was or would be on
account of a protected ground. See Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th
Cir. 2011) (holding that a personal dispute, standing alone, does not constitute
persecution on account of a protected ground); 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”). Thus, Menendez-Martinez’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Menendez-Martinez failed to show it is more likely than not he will 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).
We reject as unsupported by the record Menendez-Martinez’s contentions
that the agency violated his right to due process, ignored evidence, or otherwise
erred in its analysis of his claims.
2
As stated in the court’s August 20, 2015 order, the temporary stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3