Court Opinion

ID: 4586652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-11-16 21:00:22.701895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:38.921949
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 16 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIO GARCIA-CAMEY,                             No.    16-70075

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A095-757-415

 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 W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

      Mario Garcia-Camey, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application 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

      *
             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).
the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (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. at 1241-42. We deny

the petition for review.

      Garcia-Camey does not raise, and has thus waived, any challenge to the

agency’s dispositive determination that his asylum application was untimely. See

Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not

specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Garcia-Camey

failed to establish he was persecuted on account of a protected ground. See INS v.

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some

evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); 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 BIA did not err in finding that Garcia-Camey 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 group,

“[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who

                                         2
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 Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d

1070, 1080 (9th Cir. 2020) (particular social group must exist independently of the

harm asserted). Thus, Garcia-Camey’s withholding of removal claim fails.

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

Garcia-Camey 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). We reject Garcia-Camey’s contention that the agency applied the wrong

standard in analyzing his CAT claim.

      As stated in the court’s May 10, 2016 order, the temporary stay of removal

remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         3