U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2018

Luis Monroy-Acevado v. Jefferson Sessions

Luis Monroy-Acevado v. Jefferson Sessions
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided May 23, 2018

Luis Monroy-Acevado v. Jefferson Sessions

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS DE JESUS MONROY-ACEVADO, No. 15-71319 Petitioner, Agency No. A071-598-471 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 15, 2018** Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges Luis De Jesus Monroy-Acevado, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. 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 Monroy-Acevado’s contention as to his family as a social group because he did not raise it to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Monroy- Acevado failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears and a protected ground. See 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”). Thus, Monroy- Acevado’s withholding of removal claim fails. See id. at 1015-16.

We reject Monroy-Acevado’s contention that the agency violated his due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (error required to prevail on due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

2 15-71319

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.