Court Opinion

ID: 9389493
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 18:01:52.206239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:28.020230
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 25 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIO GUADALUPE MORALES-                        No.    21-70464
GONZALEZ,
                                                Agency No. A202-011-126
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                                Immigration Judge

                                  April 17, 2023**

Before:      CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Mario Guadalupe Morales-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Guatemala,

petitions pro se for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under

8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or

torture in Guatemala and is not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order.

      *
             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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

the 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 IJ’s determination that Morales-Gonzalez

failed to establish his resistance-based particular social group is socially distinct.

See id. at 1243 (absence of society-specific evidence of social distinction). Thus,

the IJ did not err in concluding that Morales-Gonzalez did not establish

membership in a cognizable particular 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))).

      Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Morales-

Gonzalez failed to show a reasonable possibility of persecution in Guatemala on

account of a protected ground. See Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 814 (9th

Cir. 2018) (no basis for withholding of removal where petitioner did not show a

                                           2                                     21-70464
nexus to a protected ground). In light of this disposition, we need not reach

Morales-Gonzalez’s remaining contention regarding whether the government was

unable or unwilling to protect him. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538

(9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary

to the results they reach).

      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Morales-

Gonzalez failed to show a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent

or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See Andrade-Garcia

v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836-37 (petitioner failed to demonstrate government

acquiescence sufficient to establish a reasonable possibility of future torture).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                           3                                    21-70464