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

M ANUEL GAR C IA NOYOLA, AKA He c t o r Garic a Noy ola , Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-73393 Age n c y No. A201-032-817
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 August 7, 2019 ** B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , HAW KINS and M c KEOW N, C i rc uit Judge s. Jose He c tor M anue l Ga

rc ia Noy ola (“ Garc ia Noy ola ” ), a

nat ive an d c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions p ro se for re vie w of a

B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a

ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his
a pplic ation for a s y lum an d withholding of rem ova l unde r the Im m igration a

nd 

# FIL ED AUG 26 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Nationa l ity

Ac t (“ INA” ), and prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252 a nd we de ny

the pe t ition. Whe the r a

group c onstitute s a “ pa

rtic ula r soc ia l group” is a

que stion of la

w that we re vie w de nov o , Pe rdomo v . Holde r , 611 F.3d 662, 665 (9th C ir. 2010), but
we de fe r to the B IA’ s inte rpre tation of gove rning sta tute s a nd re gula tions, Sime onov v . Ashc roft , 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th C ir. 2004). W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings. Se e Silv a-Pe re ira v . Ly nc h , 827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th C ir. 2016). The B IA did not e rr in finding tha t Ga rc ia Noy ola ha s not e sta

b lishe d
m e m b e rship in a

c ogniz a ble soc ia l group. Se e Re

y e s v . Ly nc h , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th C ir. 2016) (e xpla ining c ogniz a bility sta nda rd) (c iting Matte r

of M-E-GV- , 26 I & N De c . 227, 237 (B IA 2014)). Ga rc ia Noy ola ha s not e sta

blishe d tha

t M e x ic an nationa ls re t

urning to M e x ic o a fte r having live d in theUnite d State s for
an e x te nde d pe riod of tim e would be pe rc e ive d by soc ie ty a s a pa rtic ula r soc ia l group. Se e De lgado-Ortiz v. Holde r , 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th C ir. 2010) (re turne e s from

the Unite d State s to M e xic o is not a pa rtic u la r soc ia l group). Garc ia Noy ola a lso ha s not e s ta

blishe d tha

t he would bepe rse c ute d on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground. Se e Ze tino v
. Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C ir. 2010) (pe t itione r’ s “ de s ire to be fre e from ha ra ssm e nt by

c rim ina ls m otiva

te d by the ft or
2random

viole nc e by

ga ng m e m be rs be ars no ne xus to a prote c t e d ground” ). Thus, Garc ia Noy ola ’ s a s y lum an d

withholding of rem ova l c la im s fa il. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f. The
re c o rd doe s not c om

pe l the c o n c lusion tha

t Ga rc i a Noy ola is “ m o re like ly

tha n not” to be torture d by

or with thec onse nt or a c q uie sc e nc e of the gove rnm e n t if he
re turns to M e xic o . Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2); se e also Ade n v . Holde r , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th C ir. 2009). Thus, Ga rc ia Noy ola ’ s C AT c la im

a lso fa ils. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

3