Court Opinion

ID: 4369936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-02-21 21:00:26.783658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:49:12.532415
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 21 2019
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAXIMO MENDEZ-MARIA, AKA                        No.    18-70781
Maximino Cristobal Mendez Orozco,
                                                Agency No. A205-320-748
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted February 19, 2019**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

      Maximo Mendez-Maria, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

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

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of

removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our

      *
             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 is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo,

Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that

deference is owed to the BIA’s determination 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. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453

F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the

petition for review.

      The agency did not err in finding that Mendez-Maria 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

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 supports the BIA’s

determination that Mendez-Maria failed to establish that any harm he experienced

or fears in Guatemala was or 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

                                         2                                    18-70781
gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Thus, Mendez-Maria’s

withholding of removal claim fails.

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

Mendez-Maria failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured

by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. See Aden

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

      We lack jurisdiction to consider Mendez-Maria’s contentions regarding his

religious persecution claim because he failed to raise them to the BIA. See Barron

v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                         3                                  18-70781