N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

M ILTON M OR EL GIR ON R ODAS,

Pe t i tione r,

v. M ER R IC K B

. GAR LAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 23-752 Age n c y No. A074-421-887

M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls

Subm itte d

June 4, 2024 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : M

. SM ITH a nd B A DE, C irc uit Judge s, a nd FITZW ATER , * * * Distric t Judge

. 

# F IL ED
JUN 6 2024 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not ap p r op r i at e for public a tion 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.

* * T h e p an el u n an i m o u sl y co n cl u d es t h i s cas e i s s u i tab l e for de c isio n without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* ** The Honora

ble Sidne y A. Fitz wa t e r, Unite d Sta t e s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Te xa s, sitting by de signa tion.M ilton M ore l Giron R oda s (“ Giron” ), a na tiv e a nd c i tiz e n of Gua te m a la ,

pe titions for re v ie w of t

he B oa rd of Im m igra tion A ppe a ls’ (“ B IA’ s” ) dism issa l of his

a ppe a l from a n Im

m i gra tion Judge ’ s (“ IJ’ s” ) d e nia l of his a pplic a ti o n for a sy lum , withholding of re m o va l , and prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion a ga inst Torture (“ C AT” ). W e h a ve jurisdic tion unde r 8 U .S.C

. § 1252(a ), a nd we de ny the pe tition. B e c a use the B IA c onduc te d its own inde pe nde nt re vie w o f the e vide nc e a nd l a w in this c a se , our re vie w i s lim ite d to the B IA’ s deci s i o n . V it u g v . Holde r , 723 F.3d 1056, 1062 (9th C ir. 2 013). W e re vie w fa c tua l findings for substa ntia l e vide nc e a n d le ga l que s tions de novo. Gue rra v . Barr , 974 F.3d 909, 911 (9th C i r. 2020). As the pa rtie s a re fa m i lia r w i th t he fa c ts, we do not re c ount the m he re , e xc e pt a s n e c e ssa ry to provide c onte xt to our ruling. 1. The B IA a

pplie d the prope r sta

nda rd of re vie w to the IJ’ s de c ision in Giron’ s

c a se . The B IA re vie ws que stions of l a w de novo a nd the IJ’ s findings of fa c t for c le a r

e rror. 8 C .F.R

. §§ 1003.1(d)(3)(i)-(ii). The B IA’ s de c ision re fle c t s tha t i t a pplie d the prope r sta nda rds o f re vie w c onside ring the i ssue s G iron pre se nte d i n his a ppe a l to the B IA. 2. The B IA d id not e rr in a ffirm i ng t he IJ’ s de t e rm i nat i on tha t Giron’ s propose d pa

rtic ula r s oc ia l group— “ individua ls w ho ha ve be e n in the Unite d Sta te s for 25 or 3 0 y e a rs who re turn b a c k to Gua te m a la ”

— is not c ogniz a ble for purpose s of

2a sy lum o r withholding of re m ova l. “ [A]n a pplic a nt for a sy lum or withholding of

re m ova l se e king r e lie f ba se d o n ‘ m e m be rship in a p a rtic ula

r soc i a l group’ 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 ble

c ha ra c te ristic , (2) de fine d w ith p a rtic ula rity , a nd (3) soc ia lly d istinc t within t he soc ie t y in que stion.” In re M-E-V-G- , 26 I.& N. De c . 2 27, 237 ( BI A 2014). Substa ntia l

e vide nc e supports the IJ’ s d e te rm ina tion, a ffirm e d by the B IA, tha t Giron’ s propose d pa rtic u la r soc ia l group is i nsuffic ie ntly soc ia lly distinc t, be c a

use G iron d id not point
to e vide nc e in the re c ord s howing tha t Gua te m a la n soc ie t y per cei v es tha t group a s a disc re te c la ss of pe rsons. S e e Re y e s v . Ly nc h , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th C ir. 2016). 3. Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha t Giron is not e ntitle d
to a sy lum o r withholding o f re m ov al u n der t h e INA ba s e d o n p a st pe rse c ution or a

we ll-founde d fe a

r of future pe rse c ution ba se d on a prote c te d ground. Se e 8 U.S.C

. § § 1101(a )(42)(A), 1158(b)(1). Giron’ s fa ilure to e sta blish tha t his p ropose d pa

rtic ula r

soc i a l group is c ogniz a

b l e fore c lose s his c la im s for a sy lum a nd sta tutory withholding of re m ova l b a se d o n h is m e m be rship in this group be c a u se e ve n if the ha

rm he

e xpe rie nc e d, or m ight e xpe rie nc e in the fut ur e, r ise s to the le ve l of p e rse c ution, he fa ile d to show the re quisite ne xus to a prote c te d ground. Se e Barajas- R om ero v . Ly nc h , 846 F.3d 351, 358-59 (9th C ir. 2017) (holding tha t the prote c te d ground ne e d only be “ a re a son” for withholding of re m ova l c la im s , whe re a s it m u st be “ one c e ntra l

3re a s on” for a sy lum c la im s). A dditiona l ly , as t h e B IA note d, the m e re e xiste nc e of a

g en era l politic a l m otive “ on the pa rt o f the gue rrilla s” doe s not sa tisfy the ne xu s

re quire m e nt. Se e IN

S v . Elias-Zac arias , 502 U.S. 478, 482 (1992). 4. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha t Giron is not e ntitle d
to C AT prote c tion. Torture is “ m ore se ve re tha n pe rse c ution.” G uo v . Se ssions , 897 F.3d 1208, 1217 (9th C ir. 20 18 ) (c ita t ion o m itte d). Giron’ s e vide nc e o f c ountry

c onditions is in itse l f insuffic ie nt to m a ke him e l i gible for C AT prote c tion, be c a use it doe s not indic a te a ny thre a t o f torture t ha t is pa rtic ula riz e d to him or m ore l ike l y tha n the thre a t to t

h e popula c e a s a whole

. S ee D e lgado-Ortiz v . Holde r , 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th C ir. 2010) (pe r c uria m ); Ramirez

- M u n o z v . Ly nc h , 816 F.3d 1226, 1230 (9th C ir. 2016). And he ha s provide d no e vide n c e c om pe l ling the c onc lusion tha t i t i s “ m o re like ly tha n not [tha t he ] would be torture d ” a t the ha nds of ga ngs if

re turne d to Gua

t e m a la

. Ramire

z-Munoz , 816 F.3d a

t 1230. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D

.

4