N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LUIS ENRIQUE PINEDA-R ODR IGUEZ, AKA C holo, AKA Vie w,

Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-73498 Age n c y No. A095-730-450
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d August 7, 2019 ** B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , HAW KINS and M c KEOW N, C i rc uit Judge s. Luis EnriquePine da -R odrigue z , a native and c i tiz e n of Hondura s, pe titions pro se for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igrations Appe a l s’ (B IA) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igrat ion judge ’ s (IJ) de c i sion de ny ing his a pplic ations for 

# FIL ED AUG 23 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).withholding of rem o v a l a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture(C AT). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we de ny

the pe tition. Whe the r a

group c onstitute s a “ pa

rtic ula r soc ia l group” is a

que stion of la

w that we re vie w de novo. Pe rdomo v . Holde r , 611 F.3d 662, 665 (9th C ir. 2010). W e re vie wfor substa

ntia l e vide nc e the a g e nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings. Ze haty e v . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th C ir. 2006). The B IA did not e rr in its c onc lusion tha t Pine da -R odrigue z fa ile d to
e sta blish m e m

be rship in a

c ogniz a ble soc i a l group. Se e Re

y e s v . Ly nc h , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th C ir. 2016) (in orde r to de m onstra te m e m be rship in a

pa rtic ula r group, “ [t] he a

pplic a nt m ust ‘ e sta blish tha t the group is (1) c om

pose d of m e m

be rs who sha re a c om m on im m uta b le c ha ra c te ristic , (2) de fine d with pa rtic ula rity , a nd (3) soc ia lly

distinc t within the

soc ie ty in que stion’ ” (quoting Matte r of M-E-V-G- , 26 I. & N. De c . 227, 237 (B IA 2014))). Thus, Pine da -R odrigue z ’ s withholding of
re m ova l c la im

fa ils. 1 Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t Pine d a R odrigue z did not e sta

b l ish tha t he wa s m ore like ly

tha n not to betorture d by

or

1 Our c onc l usion is not affe c te d by the diffe ring ne xus sta

nda rds a pplic a ble to a s y lum and withholding of re

m ova l c la im s. C

f. Barajas-Romero v . Ly nc h , 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th C ir. 2017) (disc ussing Ze tino v . Holde r having dra

wn no distinc tion be twe e n the sta nda rds whe re the re wa s no ne xus a t a l l to a prote c te d ground). 2with thec onse nt or a c q uie sc e nc e of the gove rnm e nt upon his re turn to Hondura s. Tamang v . Holde r , 598 F.3d 1083, 1095 (9th C i r. 2010) (re je c ting pe titione r’ s C AT c la i m

be c a use he fa ile d to pre se nt a

n “ obje c t ive ba sis of fe ar” and tha t “ he would m ost like ly

be torture d by

or with thea c quie sc e nc e of a gove rnm e nt offic ia l” ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

3