NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 

Immigration 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 Immigration 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 APPEALS
2 

v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2018). We review denials of asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture for 

substantial evidence, upholding 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 abused 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, 1092–93 (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 withholding). 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 Petitioner might suffer if returned to Honduras will 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 Karingithi 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.