NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MOISIS FRANCISCO-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, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 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, Simeonov 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 not 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-Francisco’s asylum and withholding of 
3 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 government 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 actions of the agency) (Docket Entry No. 21) are denied. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.