Court Opinion

ID: 6111657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-21 21:00:37.82393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:54:20.215174
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 21 2022
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RONALD LOPEZ-GARCIA, AKA Alex            No. 17-71216
Garcia, AKA Reynaldolpe Garcia, AKA
Ronald Garcia, AKA Ronaldo Garcia-Lopez, Agency No. A206-411-917
AKA Alejandro Francisco Lopez, AKA
Ronald Rednaldo Lopezgarcia,
                                         MEMORANDUM*
               Petitioner,

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                           Submitted January 19, 2022**

Before:      SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Ronald Lopez-Garcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

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

      *
             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).
from an immigration judge’s 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 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. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Id. at 1241. We

deny the petition for review.

      Lopez-Garcia does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that

his asylum application was time-barred and that he did not establish changed or

extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing. 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). Thus, we deny the petition for

review as to Lopez-Garcia’s asylum claim.

      The BIA did not err in concluding that Lopez-Garcia failed to 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

                                           2                                    17-71216
Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). Substantial evidence

supports the agency’s determination that Lopez-Garcia otherwise failed to establish

he was or would be persecuted 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, Lopez-Garcia’s withholding of

removal claim fails.

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

Lopez-Garcia failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Garcia-Milian v.

Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that petitioner did not

establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          3                                   17-71216