Kevin Perez-Delzas v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 15 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEVIN PEREZ-DELZAS, No. 20-72047
Petitioner, Agency No. A209-168-721
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Kevin Perez-Delzas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238,
1241 (9th Cir. 2020). 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. Id. at 1241-42. We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Perez-Delzas
failed to establish that the harm he experienced rose to the level of persecution.
See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2019) (record did
not compel the conclusion that harm rose to the level of persecution).
The agency did not err in concluding that Perez-Delzas 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))); see also Santos-
Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008) (proposed group “young
men in El Salvador resisting gang violence” lacked particularity), abrogated on
2 20-72047
other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en
banc).
Thus, Perez-Delzas’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Perez-Delzas 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 El Salvador. See
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).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 20-72047