NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CRISTIAN RAFAEL JORGE MONZON, 

AKA Cristian Jorge Jorgemonzon, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-73014 

Agency No. A202-033-636 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 4, 2020**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Cristian Rafael Jorge Monzon, 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 applications for asylum 

and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We 

* 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

FEB 6 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-73014 

review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th 

Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation

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. 

Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the 

petition for review.

The agency did not err in finding that Jorge Monzon’s proposed social group 

based on gang recruitment was not cognizable. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 

1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular group, 

“[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who 

share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) 

socially distinct within the society in question.’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 

I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 

854-55 (9th Cir. 2009) (men in Guatemala resisting gang violence is not a 

particular social group).

Jorge Monzon does not challenge the agency’s determination that resisting 

gang violence is not a political opinion. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 

1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a 
3 16-73014 

party’s opening brief are waived).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Jorge Monzon 

failed to establish the harm he experienced or fears in Guatemala was or would be 

on account of his family membership or other protected ground. 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”); 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”). 

Thus, Jorge Monzon’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. 

In light of this disposition, we do not reach Jorge Monzon’s remaining 

contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts 

and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they 

reach).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.