NOT FOR PUB LIC ATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
JULIO LEONEL DONIS- ) No. 15-72670 B ARR IENTOS, ) ) Age n c y

No. A205-843-774 Pe titione r, ) ) M EM OR

A NDUM * v. ) ) W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y ) Ge ne ra l, ) ) R e sponde nt. ) )

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 M arc h 4, 2019 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s, a nd DONATO, *** Distric t Judge
. Julio Le o n e l Donis-B arrie ntos, a native and c itiz e n of Gua t e m a la , pe titions 

# F IL ED
M AR 29 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he pa ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

*** The Honora

ble Ja m e s Dona to, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.for re vie w of the B o a rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (B IA) de nia l of his a p plic a tion for a s y lum , 1 withholding of rem ova l, 2 and C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (C AT) 3
re lie f. W e de ny the pe tition. (1) The B IA’ s de te rm ination tha t a n a lie n is not e ligiblefor a sy lum m ust be uphe ld if “ ‘ supporte d by re a sona ble , substa

ntia l, a nd proba tive e vide n c e on the
re c o rd c onside re d a s a

whole .’ ” IN

S v . Elias-Zac arias , 502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S. C t. 812, 815, 117 L. Ed. 2d 38 (1992). “ It c an be re ve rse d only

if the e vide n c e pre s e nte d . . . wa s suc h tha t a re a sona ble fa c tfinde r would ha

ve to c onc lude tha

t the
re quisite fe ar of pe rse c ution e xiste d.” Id. ; se e also Farah v . Ashc roft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). W h e n a n a lie n se e ks to ove rturn the B IA’ s a d v e rse de te rm i nation, “ he m

u s t show tha

t the e vide nc e he pre se nte d wa s so c o m pe lling that no re a sona

ble fa c tfinde r c ould fa il to find the re quisitefe ar of pe rse c ut ion.” Elias-Zac arias , 502 U.S. a t 483–84, 112 S. C t. at 817; se e also Ling Huang v

. Holde r , 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th C ir. 2014). W he n a n a sy lum c la im is involve d,
an a l ie n m ust show e i the r pa st pe rse c ution or a we ll-founde d

fe a r of future

1 8 U.S.C . § 1158(a )(1).
2 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)(3)(A).
3 Unite d Nat ions C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture and Othe r C rue l, Inhum an or De gra ding Tre a tm e nt or Punishm e nt, adopte d De c . 10, 1984, S. Tre a ty

Doc . No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, im ple m e nte d

at 8 C .F.R
. § 1208.18. 2pe rse c ution tha t is “ subje c t ive ly

ge nuine an d obje c tive ly

re a sona ble .” Fishe r v . IN S , 79 F.3d 955, 960 (9th C i r. 1996) (e n ba nc ); se ealso Gu v . Gonzale s , 454 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th C ir. 2006). Donis ha s not m e t this burde n. He subm itte d no e vide nc e tha t he wa s pe rsona lly

pe rse c ute d in Gua

te m a l a at a ny tim e . Nor ha s he shown a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution. For e xam ple : His sugge stion tha

t he m ight be pe rse c ute d in the future re s ts upon his c la i m tha t he is a m e m be r of a soc ia l group 4
c om prise d of “ y oung Gua

te m a la n m e n who a re re lative s of ga

ng m e m be rs a nd a re ta rge ts of gove rnm e nt a

uthoritie s a s pa

rt of a soc i a l c le ansing dueto the ir fam ily
re lationships.” In the first pla c e , the e vide nc e doe s not c om p e l a de te rm ination tha

t the re is “ soc ia l c l e ansing” of the ty pe he m e n tions in Gua

t e m a la . M ore im porta ntly , a s the B IA sta

te d, tha t propose d group is “ too a m orphous to c onstitute
a soc ia l group.” Se e D e lgado-Ortiz v . Holde r , 600 F.3d 1148, 1151–52 (9th C ir. 2010) (pe r c uriam ); Barrios v . Holde r , 581 F.3d 849, 855 (9th C ir. 2009); se e also Ramire z-Munoz v
. Ly nc h , 816 F.3d 1226, 1228–29 (9th C ir. 2016). And the fa c t that Donis’ brothe r wa s m

urde re d by

som e unknown pe rson (if, inde e d, he wa s
m urde re d), doe s not c om

pe l a de te rm inat ion tha

t Donis will be

ta rge te d for pe rse c ution if here turns to Gua te m a la . R andom

c rim ina l viole nc e is not suffic ie nt

4 Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(42)(A) (A “ we ll-founde d fe ar of pe rse c ution on a c c ount of . . . m e m

be rship in a

pa rtic ula r soc ia l group” m ay be a

ba sis for re lie f.). 3to support a

we ll-founde d fe ar. Se e Ze tino v
. Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C ir. 2010); Lolong v . Gonzale s , 484 F.3d 1173, 1179–81 (9th C i r. 2007) (e n ba nc ). In short, on this re c ord a finding of we ll-founde d fe ar wa s not c om pe lle d
. Se e Elias-Zac arias , 502 U.S. a t 481 n.1, 112 S. C t. at 815 n.1. (2) B e c a

use the B IA prope rly

de t e rm i ne d tha

t Donis did not m

e e t the
re quire m e nts for a

grant of a sy lum , it c orre c tly de te rm ine d tha t he did not m e e t the
re quire m e nts for withholding of re m ova l. Se e Ze haty ev . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th C ir. 2006); P e dro-Mate o v . IN S , 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th C ir. 2000); Fishe r , 79 F.3d a

t 965. (3) The re is no e v i de nc e in the re c ord tha t would c om

pe l a de te rm ination that it is m o re like l y

tha n not tha t Donis would be

torture d in Gua

te m a la by or with the a c quie sc e nc e of gove rnm e nt offic ia l s. Thus, heis not e ntitle d to C AT re lie f. Se e D e lgado-Ortiz , 600 F.3d a t 1152; W ak k ary v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1067–68 (9th C ir. 2009). Pe tition DENIED.

4