
    Victor SORIANO-JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73288
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    Filed October 6, 2017
    Victor Soriano Jimenez, Pro Se
    Jacob Bashyrov, Esquire, Patricia Bruckner, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Victor Soriano-Jimenez, 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 thus is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s factual findings. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Soriano-Jimenez failed to demonstrate a reasonable fear of persecution on account of a protected ground. See 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.”).

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Soriano-Jimenez failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836-37. Thus, Soriano-Jimenez’s challenges to the IJ’s negative reasonable fear determination fail.

We do not consider the materials Sori-ano-Jimenez references and attached to his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     