N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
R ONY OM AR

M AR ADIAGA, AKA R ony M ara d ia ga ,

Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-72345 Age n c y No. A094-777-218
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. R ony Om ar M ara dia ga , a

native and c itiz e n of Hondura s, pe titions for
re vie w of a

B oa rd of Im m igrations Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l 

# 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 a t 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).from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing his a pplic a tion for c anc e lla

tion of
re m ova l, withholding of re m ova l, a nd re lie f pursua

nt to theC onve ntion Aga inst Torture (“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w de novo que stions of la w. C e r e zo v . Muk ase y , 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th C ir. 2008), e xc e pt to thee xte nt tha t de fe re nc e is owe d to the B IA’ s inte rpre tation of thegove 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 t ua l findings, Singh v . W

hitak e r , 914 F.3d 654, 658 (9th C ir. 2019), a n d we de ny the pe tition. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s m ora l c ha

ra c te r de te rm ination, whe re M ara dia ga

gave fa lse te stim ony

for the purpose of obta ining a n im m igration be ne fit. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1101(f)(6) ( a n individual who “ ha s give n fa lse te stim ony for the purpose of obta ining [im m igration] be ne fits” c annot show good m ora l
c ha ra c te r); 8 U.S.C
. § 1229b(b)(1)(B ) (re q uiring good mora l c ha

ra c t e r for
c anc e lla tion of re m ova l ); Ramos v . IN S , 246 F.3d 1264, 1266 (9th C ir. 2001) (to pre c lude good m ora l c ha

ra c te r, the fa lse te stim ony m ust ha v e “ b e e n m a de ora lly
and unde r oa th, a

nd the witne ss m

ust ha ve ha d the subje c tive inte nt to de c e ive for the p urpose s of obta ining im m igration be ne fits.” ). R e ga rding his c la i m

for withholding of rem ova l, the a ge nc y did not e rr in
2finding tha

t M a ra dia ga did not de m onstra

te he is e l igible for re lie f a s a m e m be r of
a pa rtic ula r soc ia l group. R e

y e s v . Ly nc h , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th C ir. 2016) (in orde r to de m onstra

te m e m b e rship in a

pa rtic ula r soc ia l group, a

n a pplic ant m

ust
e sta blish tha t the groups is (1) c om

pose d of m e m

be rs who sha

re a c o m m on im m uta ble c ha ra c te ristic ; (2) de fine d with pa rtic ula rity ; a nd (3) soc ia lly

distinc t within thesoc ie t

y in que stion) (quoting Matte r of M-E-V-G- , 26 I. & N. De c . 227, 237 (B IA 2014)) . Fina lly , substa

ntia l e v ide nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s de te rm inat ion tha

t M ara dia ga

ha s not de m onstra

te d it is m ore like ly

tha n not tha t he will e xpe rie nc e torture upon his re turn to Hondura s to be e ligiblefor C A T re lie f. M ara dia g a ’ s te stim ony doe s not de m onstra

te tha t he is like ly

to fa c e ha

rm upon his re turn to Hondura s, give n the fa c t tha t he ha s not be e n

pe rsona lly

thre at e ne d, nor ha

rm e d, by individua ls in Hondura s. Se e Zhe ng v . Holde r , 644 F.3d 829, 835–36 (9th C ir. 2011) (holding tha

t spe c ulative c la i m s of torture are insuffic ie nt to a fford re lie f). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W DE NIE D.

3