Opinion
No. 16-71854
08-28-2019
ALEX PEREZ SALVADOR, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A202-003-139 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Alex Perez Salvador ("Perez Salvador"), a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing Perez Salvador's appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying Perez Salvador's application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition.
We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA's interpretation 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).
The BIA did not err in finding that Perez Salvador did not 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))). Thus, Perez Salvador's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Perez Salvador 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 Guatemala because he did not provide evidence that the government was aware of the extortion and robbery attacks. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); 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).
We reject as unsupported by the record Perez Salvador's contentions that the BIA erred in its consideration of his evidence, its analysis of his claims, or its conclusion that he failed to meaningfully identify a political opinion.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.