N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT REYES ALEXANDER

M EZALOALLAS, Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-73650 Age n c y No. A206-015-820
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 10, 2022 * * Phoe nix, Ariz ona B e fore : M UR G U IA, C hie f Judge , a nd O’ SC A

NNLAIN a

n d GR AB ER , C i rc uit Judge s . Pe titione r R e y e s Ale xa

n de r M e z a -Loa lla s, a

native and c i tiz e n of Gua te m a la , se e k s re vie w of a

fina l de c ision of theB oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) dism issing his a

ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de nia l of Pe t itione r’ s 

# FIL ED FEB 14 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).a

pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd prote c tion under the C onve ntion Against Torture(“ C AT” ). W e de ny the pe tition. 1. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t Pe t itione r did not show tha t he would bepe rse c ute d be c a u s e of his m e m

be rship in a

purporte d pa rtic u la r soc ia l group. Se e Pla

nc arte v. Ga

rland, 9 F.4th 1146, 1151 (9th C ir. 2021) (re vie wing for substa ntia l e vide nc e the fa c tua l findings tha t unde rlie the B IA’ s de nia l of a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a n d C AT re lie f). The B IA did not e rr in re

je c ting Pe t itione r’ s propose d soc ia l group—“ future
orie nte d substa

ntia l steps to oppose

ga ng a c tivity ”

— a s insuffic ie ntly pa rtic u la r. Se e Pe rdom o v. Holde r, 611 F.3d 662, 665 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ Whe the r a group
c onstitute s a

‘ pa rtic ula r soc ia l group’ . . . is a

que stion of la

wwe re vie w de novo.” ). The propose d group’ s bounda rie s a re too va g ue to m e e t the pa rtic ula rity
re quire m e nt be c a

use the group inc l ude s thosewho opposega ng a c t ivity

for any
re a s on. Se e R e y e s v. Ly

nc h, 842 F.3d 1125, 1135 (9th C ir. 2016) (holding tha t the B IA “ ha s long re quire d tha t a pa rtic ula r soc ia l group ha

ve c le ar bounda

rie s a nd that its c ha ra c te ristic s ha

ve c o m m only a c c e pte d de finitions” ); Santos-Le m us v. M uka s e y , 542 F.3d 738, 745–46 (9th C ir. 2008) (holding tha t “ y oung m e n in El Sa lva d or re sisting ga

n g viole nc e ” did not qualify a s a propose d soc ia l group be c a use the group wa s “ too loose ly de fine d to m e e t the re quire m e nt for 2pa

rtic u la rity ” in tha

t the group “ inc lude [d] any y oung m e n who for a

ny re a son
re sist ga ng viole n c e and intimidation” ), a brogate d on othe r grounds by He nrique z -R iva s v. Holde r, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba nc ). Ac c ordingly , the B IA pe rm issibly de nie d Pe t itione r’ s c l a im s for a sy lum and withholding of rem o v a l. 2. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e a lso supports the a ge nc y ’ s c onc lusion tha t Pe titione r fa ile d to show tha

t he will “m ore like ly

tha n not” fa c e torture by

the gove rnm e nt if
re turne d to Gua

t e m a la . 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2). No e v ide nc e in there c ord shows that Pe titione r ha d

be e n torture d

in Gua te m a l a pre viously
. Nor ha s Pe titione r provide d a

ny pa rtic ula riz e d e v i de nc e tha

t ha rm will beinflic te d by

or with the
a c quie sc e nc e of public offic ia ls. Se e De lga do-Ortizv. Holde r, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th C ir. 2010) (holding tha t ge ne ra liz e d e vide nc e of viole n c e and c rim e tha t is not pa rtic ula r to pe t i tione r is insuffic i e nt to m e e t the sta nda rd for C AT prote c tion). And a

pe titione r’ s ge n e ra liz e d fe ar of the possibility of ha rm in the future , no m atte r how sinc e re , c annot c o m p e l a c onc lusion c ontra

ry to tha t re a c he d by the a ge nc y . Se e Lope z v. Se ssions, 901 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding tha

t a ge ne ra liz e d thre at of future ha rm “ doe s not provide a

suffic ie nt ba sis to c onc lude tha

t a ny ha rm . . . would rise

to thele ve l of torture ” ). Thus, the B IA pe rm issibly

de nie d C AT re lie f. 3PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

4