NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

KEVIN PEREZ

- DELZAS,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 20

- 72047 Agency No. A209

- 168

- 721

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 12 , 2021 * *
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges

. Kevin Perez

- Delzas, a native and citizen of El Salvador , petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

* 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 15 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 72047

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U .S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr , 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo the legal question of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent tha t deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Id . at 1241

- 42

. We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Perez

- Delzas failed to establish that the harm he experienced rose to the level of persecution.
See Duran

- Rodriguez v. Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 10 2 8

- 29 (9th Cir. 2019) ( record did not compel the conclusion that harm rose to the level of persecution). The agency did not err in concluding that Perez

- Delzas 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 a

pplicant 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

Lemus v. Mukasey , 542 F.3d 738, 745

- 46 (9th Cir. 2008) (proposed group “young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence” lacked particularity) , abrogated on3 20

- 72047

other grounds by Henriquez

- Rivas v. Holder , 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Thus, Perez

- Delzas’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denia l of CAT relief because
Perez

- Delzas failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the consen t or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See
Garcia

- Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1033

- 35 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.