Oscar Martinez-Suarez v. William Barr ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
OSCAR MARTINEZ-SUAREZ, No. 18-71514
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-786-477
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 21, 2019*
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Oscar Martinez-Suarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
*
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).
findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if
Martinez-Suarez stated a cognizable social group, he failed to establish that the
harm he suffered and fears was or would be on account of 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” (emphasis in
original)); see also Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001)
(harm based on personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected
ground); 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.”). We reject
Martinez-Suarez’s contention that the agency applied the wrong legal standard.
Thus, Martinez-Suarez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Martinez-Suarez failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by
2 18-71514
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government. See Aden v. Holder, 589
F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 18-71514