NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LESTER MARTINEZ SALGADO,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 72205 Agency No. A206

- 350

- 314

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted November 12, 2019

Pasadena, California Before: GRABER, BERZON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Lester Martinez Salgado seeks review of the Board of Immigr ation Appeals’ decision to deny his request for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition. Where, as here, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopts and
affirms the decision of the Immigrat ion Judge (“IJ”) and provides additional reasoning, the panel reviews both the BIA ’s and IJ’s decisions. Gonzalez

- Caraveo

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

NOV 21 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

v. Sessions , 882 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2018)

. We review denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention A gainst Torture for substantial evidence, uphold ing the agency’s findings unless the evidence compels a contrary result. See, e.g. , Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We review for abuse of discretion the determination that a crime is particularly serious , rendering petitioner ineligible for asylum or withholding of
removal. Avendano

- Hernandez v. Lynch , 800 F.3d 1072, 1077

– 78 (9th Cir. 2015)

. 1. We deny the petition as to Martinez Salgado’s asylum and withholding
claims

. Neither the IJ nor the BIA abuse d its discretion in concluding that Petitioner’s conviction was for a particularly serious crime , rendering him statutorily ineligible for asylum or withholding. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii) , 1231(b) (3)(B)(ii). Additionally, Martinez Salgado failed to show that he was a member of a cognizable particular social group. Petitioner’s first proposed social
group, “Honduran witnesses to MS

- 13’s criminal activities who fail to abide by the gang’s demands , ” is not cognizable. See, e.g. , Henriquez

- Rivas v. Holder , 707 F.3d
1081 , 109 2

– 93 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (noting that “ proposed social groups of
those generally opposed to gangs or resistant to gang recruitment ” are not cognizable for asylum or withholdi ng). Petitioner failed to show that he is a member of his proposed alternative social group , “Honduran persons taking concrete steps to oppose gang membership and gang authority

. ”3

2. We deny the petition as to Martinez Salgado’s claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture. Substantial evidence , including a recent country conditions report indicating that the government has been discharging large numbers of police officers for corruption, supports the IJ’s and BIA’s finding that any torture Petitio ner might suffer if returned to Honduras w ill not occur with the government’s acquiescence. 3. Martinez Salgado’s argument that the IJ and BIA lacked jurisdiction because of deficiencies in his Notice to Appear is squarely foreclosed by our decision in Kar ingithi v. Whitaker

. See 913 F.3d 1158 , 1159 (9th Cir. 2019) (initial notice to appear need not include time and date of the hearing to vest jurisdiction in immigration court).
DENIED.