Court Opinion

ID: 4564492
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-09-10 20:00:57.113794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:01.969907
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 10 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DENIS E. PINEDA, AKA Denis Edgardo              No.    15-72299
Pineda Valencia,
                                                Agency No. A073-979-451
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted September 8, 2020**

Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Denis E. Pineda, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of

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

immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, 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 for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir.

2014). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration

proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the

petition for review.

        Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Pineda failed

to establish a nexus between the harm he experienced or fears in El Salvador 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, 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, Pineda’s asylum and withholding of removal claims

fail.

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

Pineda 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 El Salvador. See

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

torture).

                                          2                                     15-72299
      Pineda’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights fails. See

Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (requiring error to

prevail on a due process claim).

      As stated in the Court’s October 19, 2015 order, the temporary stay of

removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         3                                     15-72299