Case ID: f-appx_693/html/0616-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Manuel MORALES-GUSCA, AKA Lenin Aparicio-Morales, AKA Rafa Hernandez Morales, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-73899
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2017
    
    Filed July 7, 2017
    Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Attorney, Federal Immigration Counselors, AZ, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, OIL, Vanessa M. Otero, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    
      Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R. App, P, 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

Manuel Morales-Gusca, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in finding Morales-Gusca failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (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”). Thus, we deny the petition as to his withholding of removal claim.

Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Morales-Gusca’s CAT claim because he did not demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured by the Mexican government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya, 524 F.3d at 1073.

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