NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIO JOSE RODRIGUEZALVARADO, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-72425 

Agency No. A206-736-731 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 16, 2019**

San Diego, California

Before: HURWITZ, OWENS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Mario Jose Rodriguez-Alvarado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

petitions for review of a final removal order of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)

denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 

* 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

OCT 18 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Against Torture (“CAT”). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not 

recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and deny the 

petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that 

Rodriguez-Alvarado failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum or withholding of 

removal.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that RodriguezAlvarado failed to present sufficient evidence that his proposed particular social 

group of “young males from El Salvador taking concrete steps to avoid gang 

recruitment” had “the requisite particularity and social distinction to be 

cognizable.” To be cognizable, a “particular social group” must be “(1) composed 

of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with 

particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.” Reyes v. 

Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016). Although this court has determined 

that “persons taking concrete steps to oppose gang membership and gang 

authority” may plausibly constitute a particular social group, “the agency must 

make a case-by-case determination as to whether the group is recognized by the 

particular society in question.” Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077, 1084 (9th Cir. 

2014). 
3 

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that RodriguezAlvarado failed to meet the particularity requirement because he did not establish

that Salvadoran society recognizes his proposed group “as a discrete class of 

persons.” Reyes, 842 F.3d at 1134 (citation omitted). Rodriguez-Alvarado’s 

general evidence about gang violence does not compel the conclusion that 

Salvadoran society considers “young males from El Salvador taking concrete steps 

to avoid gang recruitment” as a distinct social group. See id. at 1138. Even if 

Rodriguez-Alvarado had presented sufficient evidence that his proposed particular 

social group were cognizable, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s 

determination that he failed to meet the “nexus” requirement because he did not 

show that the gangs targeted him based on his membership in that group, and not 

simply for monetary gain or to increase gang membership. Id. at 1132 n.3.

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that RodriguezAlvarado’s refusal to join the gang or comply with their demands, standing alone,

did not constitute an imputed political opinion. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 

849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting the petitioner’s argument that he was persecuted 

on account of a political opinion because, despite his refusal to join the gang, he 

“failed to present evidence that he was politically or ideologically opposed to the 

ideals espoused by the gang that recruited him (or to gangs in general), or that the 

gang imputed to him any particular political belief”), abrogated in part on other 
4 

grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013) (en 

banc). Nor did the gang members’ purported belief that Rodriguez-Alvarado was 

aligned with a rival gang constitute an imputed political opinion. Cf. Zetino v. 

Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). In any event, Rodriguez-Alvarado 

failed to meet the “nexus” requirement because he did not show that gang members 

targeted him on account of any imputed political opinion. See Barrios, 581 F.3d at 

856 (stating that rather than political opinion, “[t]he evidence instead supports the 

conclusion that the gang victimized him for economic and personal reasons”); see 

also Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1016 (stating that a petitioner’s “desire to be free from 

harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members 

bears no nexus to a protected ground”).

2. Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that 

Rodriguez-Alvarado does not qualify for CAT protection. Rodriguez-Alvarado 

failed to show that he fears severe pain or suffering “inflicted by or at the 

instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other 

person acting in an official capacity” if returned to El Salvador. 8 C.F.R. 

§ 208.18(a)(1); see also Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 

2016) (“[A] general ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate and 

prevent crime will not suffice to show acquiescence.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.