Court Opinion

ID: 9909233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-12 19:01:17.147384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:21.141629
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        DEC 12 2023

                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                   MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

TIBURCIO CARRILLO CRUZ,                           No. 21-1178
                Petitioner,                       Agency No.
                                                  A095-012-908
  v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals
                          Submitted December 7, 2023 **
                              Pasadena, California

Before: CALLAHAN, R. NELSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

       Petitioner Tiburcio Carrillo Cruz, a citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his

appeal from a decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) 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 the agency’s

legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. See

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as

provided by 9TH CIR. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without

oral argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 2020). Under the latter standard,

“the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable

adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(4)(B). We deny the petition.

      1. An IJ denied Petitioner’s applications for withholding of removal and

CAT protection. The BIA affirmed. Petitioner timely appeals.

      2. Petitioner failed to show a “clear probability” of persecution on account

of a protected ground, as required for withholding of removal. Garcia v. Holder,

749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted); see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A).

Petitioner proposed a circular social group of “victims of gang violence.”

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner’s proposed

group is neither particular nor socially distinct, and thus is not a cognizable social

group. See Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2020); see also

Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1080 (9th Cir. 2020) (stating that it is a

“well-established principle that a particular social group must exist independently

of the harm asserted”). Accordingly, Petitioner’s withholding of removal claim

fails. See Diaz-Reynoso, 968 F.3d at 1084 (“[I]t is the applicant’s burden to

demonstrate the existence of a cognizable particular social group.” (citations

omitted)).

      3. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner

                                          2
failed to show that, if removed, he more likely than not would be tortured by or

with the acquiescence of a Guatemalan public official. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(c)(2). Petitioner does not challenge the IJ’s findings that his past

experiences did not rise to the level of torture, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(i), that

it would be reasonable for him to relocate to avoid the violence he has experienced,

see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(ii), or that his country conditions evidence did not

reveal “gross, flagrant[,] or mass violations of human rights” in Guatemala; see

also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(iii). Petitioner cites only generic evidence of

violence in Guatemala on appeal. This is insufficient to meet the CAT protection

standard, see Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010), and

Petitioner’s claim fails.

      DENIED.

                                          3