NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BAYRON AGUSTO ORANTES DELCID, 

AKA Bayron Augusta Orantes, AKA 

Bayron Augusto Orantes, AKA Byron 

Agusto Orantes, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-72387 

Agency No. A205-720-347 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 17, 2022**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Bayron Agusto Orantes Delcid, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his 

* 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

MAY 20 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-72387 

appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for 

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

Torture (“CAT”).

Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Id. at 1241. We 

deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Orantes Delcid’s claim for asylum because 

in his appeal to the BIA, he did not challenge the IJ’s determination that his asylum 

application was untimely. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 

2004).

We review Orantes Delcid’s claim for withholding of removal, 

notwithstanding the government’s contention that the issue was insufficiently 

briefed. See Alcaraz v. INS, 384 F.3d 1150, 1161 (9th Cir. 2004). The agency did 

not err in finding that Orantes Delcid failed to 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 
3 15-72387 

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, 855 (9th 

Cir. 2009) (proposed group of young males in Guatemala who are targeted for 

gang recruitment not cognizable), abrogated 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 Orantes Delcid otherwise failed to establish 

that he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. 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, Orantes Delcid’s withholding of 

removal claim fails.

We also review the agency’s determination that Orantes Delcid failed to 

establish that he is eligible for CAT protection. Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 

914 (9th Cir. 2018) (“It is well-established that we may review any issue addressed 

on the merits by the BIA, regardless of whether the petitioner raised it before the 

agency.”). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Orantes Delcid 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).
4 15-72387 

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

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.