Case Information
*1 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 *2 determination. Orozco Lopez v. Garland , 11 F.4th 764, 774 (9th Cir. 2021). We deny the petition for review.
S ubstantial 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).
S ubstantial 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
[*] 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).