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

VELASQUEZVELASQUEZ,

Pe t i tione r, v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-72040 Age n c y No. A088-450-626 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 , Ha wkins a nd M c Ke own, C irc uit Judge s. Am e d Alfe r Ve la sque z -Ve la sque z , a native and c itiz e n of Guate m a la , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a

ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his 

# FIL ED AUG 26 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 ora l a

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

pplic ation for withholding of re m ova l . Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C
. § 1252 a nd we de ny

in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the pe t ition. 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 nov o , Pe rdomo v . Holde r , 611 F.3d 662, 665 (9th C ir. 2010), but
we de fe r to the B IA’ s inte rpre tation of gove rning sta tute s a nd re gula tions, Sime onov v . Ashc roft , 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th C ir. 2004). W e re vie w for substa ntia l
e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings. Se e Silv a-Pe re ira v . Ly nc h , 827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th C ir. 2016). The B IA did not e rr in finding tha t Ve la s que z -Ve la sque z ha s not e sta blishe d
m e m b e rship in a

c ogniz a ble soc ia l group. Heha s not e sta blishe d tha

t “ re p atriate d y oung m a le s re turning to Gua te m a l a a fte r a le ngthy sta y in the Unite d State s” or

“ Guate m a la

n c itiz e ns who ha

ve re turne d from

the Unite d

State s who a

re ta rge ts of kidna p ping a n d e xtortion” would be pe rc e ive d by soc i e ty a s a pa rtic ula r soc ia l group. Se e Re

y e s v . Ly nc h , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th C ir. 2016) (e xpla ining
c ogniz a bility sta nda rd) (c iting Matte r of M-E-G-V- , 26 I & N De c . 227, 237 (B IA 2014)). Ve la s que z -Ve la sque z ’ s c la im tha t he be longs to the

soc ia l group of
re turning “ Guate m a la

n a dult m a le [s] who . . . pre viously re siste d re c ruitm e nt into the g angs [in Gua

te m a la ] and [who we re ] thre at e ne d with de ath a s a re s ult,” wa s ne ve r pre se nte d

to the a ge nc y

and is the re fore une xha

uste d. Se e Barron v
. 2Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th C ir. 2004) (c ourts la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w

c la im s not pre se nte d to thea ge nc y ). Fina lly , Ve la sque z -Ve la s que z ha s not e sta blishe d tha

t h e would be pe rse c ute d on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground. Se e Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C i r. 2010) (pe titione r’ s “ d e s ire to be fre e from ha ra ssm e nt by c rim ina ls m otiva te d by the ft or ra

ndom viole n c e by

ga ng m e m b e rs be ars no ne xus to a

prote c te d ground” ). Thus, Ve la sque z -Ve la sque z ’ s withholding of rem o v a l c la im fa ils. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

3