Court Opinion

ID: 4586309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-11-13 21:00:31.136734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:08.956116
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 13 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ADRIAN ROJAS ORTA,                              No.    15-72267

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A200-245-973

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted November 9, 2020**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

      Adrian Rojas Orta, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

      *
             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).
agency’s factual findings, including determinations regarding social

distinction. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We

review de novo the legal question of whether a particular social group is

cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation

of the governing statutes and regulations. Id. We deny the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rojas Orta

failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears in Mexico and a protected

ground. 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”);

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”).

      The agency did not err in finding that Rojas Orta failed to establish

membership in a gang recruitment-based social group. 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))).

                                           2                                      15-72267
      Thus, Rojas Orta’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

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

Rojas Orta 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 Mexico. See Aden v.

Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

      The record does not support Rojas Orta’s contentions that the agency failed

to consider evidence, ignored arguments, 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).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         3                                    15-72267