NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FELIPE CLAVEL GONZALEZ, AKA 

Felipe Clauel Gonzalez, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-73979 

Agency No. A200-975-089 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 7, 2020**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Felipe Clavel Gonzalez, 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 application for withholding of removal 

and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction 

* 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

APR 20 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-73979

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual 

findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We 

review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. 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 deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that being beaten and 

robbed of his wallet at knifepoint, and hearing an unknown party threaten his 

brother at his family’s home, do not establish that Clavel Gonzalez suffered past 

persecution or that he likely will be subject to future persecution. See Hoxha v. 

Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003) (harassment, threats, and a beating 

unconnected with any particular threat did not compel finding of past persecution); 

see also Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168, 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(“vague and conclusory allegations” regarding threats “are clearly insufficient to 

support a finding of a well-founded fear of future persecution”).

The agency did not err in determining that Clavel Gonzalez’s proposed

particular social group is not cognizable. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 

(9th Cir. 2016) (“The 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’” (citation 
3 16-73979

omitted)); see also Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2019)

(individuals “returning to Mexico [from] the United States [who] are believed to be 

wealthy” do not constitute a particular social group (alterations in original)); 

Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008) (proposed group 

of “young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence” does not constitute a 

cognizable particular social group), abrogated in part by Henriquez-Rivas v. 

Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Clavel Gonzalez 

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, Clavel 

Gonzalez’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Clavel Gonzalez failed to show that it is more likely than not that he will be 

tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to 

Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of 

torture too speculative).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.