Court Opinion

ID: 4539847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-06-08 20:01:28.445924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:49:24.937929
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUN 8 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANCISCO VALASQUEZ, AKA                        No.    18-70746
Francisco Velasquez,
                                                Agency No. A205-316-744
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                               Submitted June 2, 2020**

Before:      LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

      Francisco Valasquez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for withholding of

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

      *
             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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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 review for

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755

F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

      The BIA did not err in finding that Valasquez’s returnee-based social group

was not cognizable. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in

order to demonstrate membership in a particular social group, “[t]he 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’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227,

237 (BIA 2014))). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that

Valasquez failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he experienced or fears

in Guatemala and a protected ground, including his family social group. See Ayala

v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular

social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or

will be on account of his membership in such group”); see also Zetino v. Holder,

                                           2                                     18-70746
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, Valasquez’s withholding of removal

claim fails.

       The record does not support Valasquez’s contentions that the BIA failed to

consider evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of his claims. See Najmabadi

v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an exegesis on

every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006)

(petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record).

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

Valasquez failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with

the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See

Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of

torture).

       PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         3                                    18-70746