N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT M AR C OS M O R

ALES-HER

R ER A, ak a M arc os M ora l e s-C ha

n, Pe t i tione r,
v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-70625 Age n c y No. A095-120-545
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 Oc tobe r 21, 2016 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GR

AB E R and M U R GUIA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd O’ C ONNELL, *** Distric t Judge
. Pe titione r M a

rc os M ora le s-He rre ra , a

native and c itiz e n of Gua t e m a la , pe titions for re vie w of a

n a dve rse de c i sion of theB oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls 

# FIL ED OCT 25 2016 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. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble B e ve rly

R e id O’ C o nne l l, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a l ifornia , sitting by de signa tion.(“ B IA” ). The B IA he ld tha t Pe titione r wa s not e ntitle d to withholding of re m ova l or prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e de ny the pe tition. 1. The B IA did not e rr by fa iling to de te rm ine c onc lusive ly whe the r phy sic a lly

disa ble d pe ople or indige nous pe ople c onstitute a “ pa rtic ula r soc ia l group.” Pe titione r is disa ble d a nd is e thnic a lly

indige nous. The B IA a ssum e d, without de c iding, tha

t Pe titione r the re fore be longs to a “ pa rtic ula r soc i a l group.” B ut the B IA c onc lude d tha t Pe titione r ha d fa ile d

to de m onstra

te tha t the ra p e he suffe re d in the pa s t, or the re ta lia tion he fe ars in the future , wa s or will be “ on
a c c ount of” his disa

b ility or e thnic ity . W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e . Ling Hua ng v. Holde r, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th C ir. 2014). TheB IA pe rm issibly found tha t Pe titione r wa s a

vic tim of random

c rim ina l viole nc e in the pa st a n d tha t his fe ar is of ge ne ra l viole nc e in his hom e c o untry in the future
. 2. The B IA did not e rr in c ha ra c te riz ing the de gre e of e c onom ic ha rdship that c onstitute s pe rse c ution. W e re vie w de novo theB IA’ s le g a l c o nc l usions, though wem ay

a fford som e de fe re nc e to the a ge nc y ’ s inte rpre tation of thesta tute s that it a dm iniste rs. Pirir-B oc v. Holde r, 750 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th C ir. 2014). The B IA’ s de c ision he re is c onsiste nt with its pre c e de ntia l c a se of In re T-Z-, 24 I. & N. De c . 163 (B .I.A. 2007), whic h disc usse d the e xtre m e nature of pe rse c ution a nd
2a dopte d the te rm “ se ve re ” in c onne c tion with e c onom ic de p rivation. And, a s a fa c t ua l m atte r, the B IA pe rm issibly c onc lude d

unde r that sta

nda rd tha t the
e c onom ic de priva

tion Pe titione r suffe re d in the pa st a nd would fa c e a ga in if
re turne d to Gua

t e m a la is not disproportiona

te to the ge ne ra l e c o nom i c diffic ultie s fa c e d by the popula c e the re . 3. The B IA did not e rr by fa iling to c onside r the c um ulative e ffe c t of the ha rm tha t Pe t itione r fa c e d, a

nd m ight fa c e a ga i n, in Gua te m a la . Se e Krotova

v. Gonz a le s, 416 F.3d 1080, 1084–87 (9th C ir. 2005) (disc ussing c um ulative e ffe c t of diffe re nt ha

rm s). Although the

B IA’ s de c ision did not expre ssly de sc ribe a
c um ulat ive ana ly s is, its discussion is re a sona b ly re a d to m e an tha

t the B IA
c onside re d not only

e a c h individual ha

rm , but a lso the c um

ulative e ffe c t of the diffe re nt ha

rm s. 4. Fina lly , the B IA rule d

tha t Pe titione r is not e ligiblefor C A T re lie f be c a use he did not show tha

t he m ore like ly

tha n not would be

torture d by , or with the a c quie sc e nc e of, the Guate m a la n gove rnm e n t . He doe s not c ha lle nge that
c onc lusion. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D
.

3