NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AMAURY LUIS CARRERA, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-72479 

Agency No. A206-406-407 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 3, 2020**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Amaury Luis Carrera, 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. 

* 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 7 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-72479 

Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference 

is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, 

Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for 

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 

F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Carrera failed 

to establish past harm in Mexico that rose to the level of persecution. See Lim v. 

INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (persecution is an “extreme concept” that 

includes the “infliction of suffering or harm”); see also INS. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 

U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992) (“To reverse the BIA finding we must find that the 

evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it[.]”). Substantial 

evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Carrera failed to establish 

that the harm he fears in Mexico would be on account of a protected ground. See 

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483 (an applicant “must provide some evidence of 

[motive], direct or circumstantial”); 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”). 
3 15-72479 

In addition, the agency did not err in finding that Carrera’s proposed social 

group of was not cognizable. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 

2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular 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 Ramirez-Munoz v. Holder, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 

(9th Cir. 2016) (concluding “imputed wealthy Americans” returning to Mexico did 

not constitute a particular social group); Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 945 

(9th Cir. 2007) (holding that a “[t]attooed gang member” does not qualify as a 

member of a particular social group).

Thus, Carrera’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. 

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because 

Carrera failed to show it is more likely than not he would 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).

We reject as unsupported by the record Carrera’s contention that the agency 
4 15-72479 

did not conduct a proper analysis of his claims. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.