Court Opinion

ID: 9398264
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-30 18:01:11.471521+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:31.963671
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MAY 30 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELIAS PINEDA-HERNANDEZ,                         No. 21-266
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A200-975-920
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted May 16, 2023**

Before:      BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

      Elias Pineda-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se

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

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for

withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

      *
            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).
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947

F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Pineda-

Hernandez failed to establish the harm he experienced or fears in Mexico was or

would be motivated by a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d

1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is

established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on

account of his membership in such group”); see also Madrigal v. Holder, 716

F.3d 499, 506 (9th Cir. 2013) (“mistreatment motivated purely by personal

retribution will not give rise to a valid asylum claim”); 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, Pineda-Hernandez’s

withholding of removal claim fails.

      We do not address Pineda-Hernandez’s contentions as to whether his

proposed particular social group is cognizable because the BIA did not deny

relief on these grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829

(9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the

grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted)).

      Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT protection because

Pineda-Hernandez failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured

                                        2                                     21-266
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico.

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

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                       3                                  21-266