NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 4 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS LOPEZ-GOMEZ,                               No.    19-72158

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A099-579-514

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

                           On Petition for Review of an
                          Order of the Immigration Judge

                               Submitted June 2, 2020**

Before:      LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

      Luis Lopez-Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se 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

Mexico, 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, 

, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We review de novo due process challenges to reasonable

fear proceedings. Zuniga v. Barr, 

, 466 (9th Cir. 2019). We deny the

petition for review.

      We do not consider the materials submitted by Lopez-Gomez that are not

part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 

, 963 (9th Cir.

1996) (en banc) (this court’s review is limited to the administrative record

underlying the agency’s decision).

      Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Lopez-Gomez

failed to establish a reasonable possibility of persecution in Mexico on account of a

protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 

, 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”);

Nagoulko v. INS, 

, 1018 (9th Cir. 2003) (fear of future persecution

speculative); Molina-Morales v. INS, 

, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001) (harm

based on personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground).

      Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Lopez-Gomez

failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or

acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Andrade-Garcia v.

Lynch, 

, 836 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[A] general ineffectiveness on the



                                          2                                    19-72158
government’s part to investigate and prevent crime will not suffice to show

acquiescence.”).

      Lopez-Gomez’s contentions that the agency violated his right to due process

fail. See Bartolome v. Sessions, 

, 812-14 (9th Cir. 2018) (concluding

that petitioner’s due process allegations in reasonable fear proceedings lacked

merit).

      Lopez-Gomez’s request to stay his removal, set forth in the opening brief, is

denied as unnecessary because, pursuant to this court’s January 29, 2020 order,

Lopez-Gomez has a stay of removal in effect.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                         3                                    19-72158