NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 applications 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 APPEALS
2 19-72565 

denying his motions 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 

evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1241. We 

review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Movsisian v. 

Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005). We 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 SantosPonce 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 

861-862 (9th Cir. 2006) (concluding that young Honduran men who resisted gang 

recruitment failed the particularity requirement and lacked the requisite social 

visibility), abrogated in part on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 

F.3d 1081, 1093 (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, ZarateCuevas’ withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Zarate-Cuevas 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 Mexico.

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

The BIA did not abuse its discretion 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 that claim before the agency. Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 

1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[T]he Board does 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 cancellation of removal is 

a very demanding one). The BIA considered the evidence Zarate-Cuevas 

submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence 

was insufficient to warrant a remand. See Movsisian, 395 F.3d at 1098 (the 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. 

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.