NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PEDRO MACTZUL-MUCIA, AKA Pedro 

Mactzul, AKA Pedro M. Mucia, AKA Pedro 

Mucia Mactzul, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-73525 

Agency No. A205-720-186 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 2, 2020**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Pedro Mactzul-Mucia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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

* 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).

FILED

DEC 7 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-73525 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial 

evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny 

the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the determination that Mactzul-Mucia failed 

to establish a nexus between his past harm and his proposed family social group or

his indigenous Mayan race. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 

2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant 

must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in 

such group”); Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(recruitment of indigenous petitioner was not on account of a protected ground); 

see also 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 . . . bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Our conclusion is not 

affected by the differing nexus standards applicable to asylum and withholding of 

removal claims. Cf. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017)

(discussing Zetino having drawn no distinction between the standards where there 

was no nexus at all to a protected ground). Substantial evidence also supports the 

determination that Mactzul-Mucia did not establish a likelihood of future 

persecution. See Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(petitioner’s fear of future persecution was not objectively reasonable where his 
3 16-73525 

family continued to live in home country unharmed); Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 

1230 (9th Cir. 2002) (petitioner failed to establish a clear probability of future 

persecution where many years had passed since his departure from home country).

Thus, Mactzul-Mucia’s withholding of removal claim fails.

We do not consider Mactzul-Mucia’s contentions that he suffered harm 

rising to the level of persecution. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 

829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review is limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because 

Mactzul-Mucia failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or 

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See 

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). 

As stated in the court’s January 24, 2017 order, the temporary stay of 

removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.