NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE LUIS URIOSTEGUI-MANJARREZ, No. 24-5621

Agency No.

Petitioner, A099-542-264 v.

MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of an

Immigration Judge

Submitted March 17, 2025** Before: CANBY, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Jose Luis Uriostegui-Manjarrez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of an immigration judge’s order affirming an asylum officer’s negative reasonable fear determination. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s reasonable fear

*

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). determination. Orozco Lopez v. Garland, 11 F.4th 764, 774 (9th Cir. 2021). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Uriostegui- Manjarrez failed to show a reasonable possibility that the harm he suffered or fears was or would be on account of a protected ground. See Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 814 (9th Cir. 2018) (no basis for withholding of removal where petitioner did not show a nexus to a protected ground).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Uriostegui-Manjarrez failed to show a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Andrade- Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836-37 (9th Cir. 2016) (petitioner failed to demonstrate government acquiescence sufficient to establish a reasonable possibility of future torture).

Uriostegui-Manjarrez’s due process claim fails because he has not shown error. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”)

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. The motion to stay removal is otherwise denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 24-5621