N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GUSTAVO ADOLFO PIRIR B OC HE, Pe t i tione r, v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-71843 Age n c y No. A087-991-802
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. Gusta vo Adolfo Pirir-B oc he , a

native and c itiz e n of Gua te m a la , pe titions pro
se for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igrations Appe a ls’ (B IA) orde r dismissing his
a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (IJ) de c i sion de ny ing his a pplic at ions for withholding of rem o v a l a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture(C AT),



# 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).and de ny i ng his re que st for a c ontinua nc e . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252, a nd we de ny

the pe t ition. The IJ did not a

b use he r disc re tion in deny ing Pirir-B oc he ’ s re q ue st for a
c ontinua nc e . Se e Pe ng v . Holde r , 673 F.3d 1248, 1253 (9th C ir. 2012) (listing fa c t ors to c onside r); Ahme d v . Holde r , 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th C ir. 2009) (e xpla ining tha

t the de c ision to gra

nt or de ny a

c o ntinua nc e is within “

t he sound disc re tion of thejudge and will not be ove rturne d e xc e pt on a

showing of c le ar a buse ” ). The B IA did not e rr in its c onc lusion tha t Pirir-B oc he did not e sta

blish
m e m b e rship in a

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

y e s v . Ly nc h , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th C ir. 2016) (de fining a pa rtic ula r soc i a l group a s: “ (1) c om pose d of
m e m b e 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 u la rity , a nd (3) soc ia lly

distinc t within the soc i e ty in que stion” ). Sim ila

rly , the B IA did not e rr in c onc luding tha t Pirir-B oc he fa ile d to de m o nstra te tha t the viole nc e he fe ars is “ on a c c ount of” a prote c te d ground. Se eAy ala v . Holde r , 640 F.3d 1095, 1097-98 (9th C ir. 2011) (re je c ting pe titione r’ s c la i m

be c a u se the pe rse c ution pe t itione r suffe re d wa s pe rsona lly m otiva te d, rathe r tha

n “ on a c c ount of” his m e m

be rship in a

pa rtic u la r soc ia l group). Thus, Pirir-B oc he ’ s withholding of re m ova l c l a im

fa ils.
2Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f. The re c ord doe s not c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t Pirir-B oc he is “ m ore like ly tha n not” to be torture d by

or with thec onse nt or a c q uie s c e n c e of the gove rnm e nt if he re turns to Guate m a la
. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2); se ealso Ade n v . Holde r , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th C ir. 2009). Thus, Pirir-B oc he ’ s C AT c la im fa ils. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

3