Court Opinion

ID: 4524543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-04-10 20:01:08.360956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:11:12.173335
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED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

AGUSTIN SANTIAGO-MARTINEZ,                      No.    17-72446

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A205-274-309

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

                Respondent.

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

                               Submitted April 7, 2020**

Before:      TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

      Agustin Santiago-Martinez, 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 de novo questions of law,

      *
             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).
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.

      In his opening brief, Santiago-Martinez does not make any arguments

challenging the agency’s dispositive conclusion that his asylum application was

untimely, and that he failed to establish changed or extraordinary circumstances.

See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in

a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).

      The agency did not err in finding that Santiago-Martinez failed to establish

membership in a cognizable 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))); see also Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d

1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding “returning Mexicans from the United

States” was overbroad and did not constitute a particular social group).

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Santiago-

                                         2                                    17-72446
Martinez otherwise failed to demonstrate that the harm he fears in Mexico would

be on account of a protected ground. See 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, Santiago-Martinez’s withholding of removal claim fails.

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

Santiago-Martinez 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

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

torture).

       PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         3                                   17-72446