NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

ABIMAEL ZARATE

- CUEVAS,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 19

- 72565 Agency No. A205

- 465

- 906

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 2, 2022 * *

Before: SILVERMAN, KOH, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. Abimael Zarate

- Cuevas , a native and citizen of Mexico , petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application s for asylum , withholding of removal , and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and

* 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

JUN 9 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 72565

denying his mo tions to remand

. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the legal question of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Conde Quevedo v. Barr , 947 F.3d 1238, 1241

- 42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo whether a petitioner has been afforded due process. Ibarra

- Flores v. Gonzales , 439 F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir. 2006). We review for substantial evide nce the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo , 947 F.3 d at 1241. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to re mand

. Mo vsisian v. Ashcroft , 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005)

. W e deny the petition for review. The agency did not err in concluding that Zarate

- Cuevas did not establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular social 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 Santos

Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 890 (9th Cir. 2021) ( the proposed particular social group of “ minor Christian males who oppose gang membership ” is not sufficiently particular or socially distinct) ; Ramos

- Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855,3 19

- 72565

86 1

- 862 (9 th Cir. 2006) ( concluding that young Honduran men who resist ed gang recruitment fail ed the particularity require ment and lack ed the requisite social visibility), abrogat e d in part on other grounds by Henriquez

- Rivas v. Holder , 707 F.3d 1081 , 109 3 (9th Cir

. 2013) (en banc)

. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Zarate

- Cuevas otherwise failed to establish he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. 1 See Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’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”). Thus, Zarate

Cuevas ’ withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection be cause Zarate

- Cuevas fai led to show it is more likely than not h e will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v. Holder , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). The BIA did not abuse its discreti on in denying Zarate

- Cuevas’ motions to remand because he failed to establish a prima facie case that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relative , a U.S.

1 Zarate

- Cuevas argues he was or would be persecuted on account of his religion , but he failed to exhaust th at claim before the agency

. Honcharov v. Barr , 924 F .3d 1293 , 1297 (9th Cir. 2019) ( “ [T] he Board d oes not per se err when it concludes that arguments raised for the first time on appeal do not have to be entertained

. ” )

.4 19

- 72565

citizen child

. Najmabadi v. Holder , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA can deny a motion to remand for failure to establish a prima facie case for the relief sought) ; Garcia v. Holder , 621 F.3d 906, 913 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard for c ancellation of removal is a very demanding one)

. T he BIA considered the evidence Zarate

- Cuevas submitted and acted within it s broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a remand. See Movsisian , 395 F.3d at 1098 ( t he BIA abuses its discretion when its decision is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law)

. We reject as unsupported by the record Zarate

- Cuevas’ contentions that the
agency violated due process, applied incorrect legal standards , or otherwise erred in the analysis of his claims.
T he temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED .