Leonel Delatorre-Gonzalez v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 11 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEONEL DELATORRE-GONZALEZ, No. 17-71532
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-322-295
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 6, 2020**
Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Leonel Delatorre-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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 de novo questions of law, Cerezo v.
*
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).
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. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755
F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in finding that Delatorre-Gonzalez 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 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))).
In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
Delatorre-Gonzalez failed to establish that the harm he fears would be because of a
protected ground. 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 INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide
some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d
849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting political opinion claim where petitioner did not
2 17-71532
present sufficient evidence of political or ideological opposition to the gang’s
ideals or that the gang imputed a particular political belief to the petitioner). Our
conclusion is not affected by the differing nexus standards applicable to asylum
and withholding of removal claims. Cf. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351,
360 (9th Cir. 2017) (discussing Zetino having drawn no distinction between the
standards where there was no nexus at all between the feared persecution and
political opinion).
Thus, Delatorre-Gonzalez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Delatorre-Gonzalez does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief.
See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we
deny the petition for review as to his CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 17-71532