NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

MOISIS FRANCISC O

- FRANCISCO,

Petitioner,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 73028 Agency No. A209

- 818

- 698

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 18, 2019 **
Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN , Circuit Judges.
Moisis Francisco

- Francisco , a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,

* 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

SEP 26 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 73028

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, Sime onov 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 BIA did not err in finding that Francisco

- Francisco did not establish membership in a cognizable social group. 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) (holding that young men from Guatemala who resist gang
recruitment is n ot a particular social group). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Francisco

- Francisco failed to establish that any harm he experienced or fears in Guatemala was or would be on account of a 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” (emphasis in original))

. Thus, Francisco

- Franci sco’s asylum and withholding of3 18

- 73028

removal claims fail. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Francisco

- Francisco failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the go vernment if returned to Guatemala

. See Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009)

. Francisco

- Francisco’s motion to appoint pro bono counsel (Docket Entry No. 20) and motion for reconsideration/clarification or modification (of unspecified action s of the agency) (Docket Entry No. 21) are denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.