Opinion
20-72508
10-13-2022
MAYNOR ROBERTO CIFUENTES-MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 7, 2022 Pasadena, California
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A200-699-650
Before: TASHIMA and LEE, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT, District Judge.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
MEMORANDUM
Maynor Roberto Cifuentes-Martinez, 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 applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 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.
The agency did not err in concluding that Cifuentes-Martinez did not 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 Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))).
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Cifuentes-Martinez failed to demonstrate that the harm he experienced or fears in Guatemala was or would be on account of a protected ground, including any actual or imputed political opinion. 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"); see also Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir. 2008) (failure to establish gangs were motivated by political or imputed political opinion), abrogated in part by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc).
Thus, Cifuentes-Martinez's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT protection because Cifuentes-Martinez 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 Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014) (evidence did not compel the conclusion that authorities acquiesced to, or more likely than not would acquiesce to torture); Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
The Honorable Richard D. Bennett, United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.