Mario Aguilar-Aguilar v. Robert Wilkinson ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIO LUIS AGUILAR-AGUILAR, AKA No. 15-71420
Mario Aguilar, AKA Mario Luis Aguilar,
Agency No. A205-719-469
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Mario Luis Aguilar-Aguilar, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro
se 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
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Aguilar-
Aguilar failed to establish that the harm he suffered or fears in Guatemala was or
would be on account of a protected ground. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849,
854-56 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting petitioner’s contention that he was persecuted on
account of his political opinion or membership in a particular social group based
on his refusal to join a gang); see also 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”). Thus, Aguilar-Aguilar’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Aguilar-Aguilar 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. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Delgado-Ortiz v.
Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and
crime in petitioner’s home country was insufficient to meet standard for CAT
relief).
As stated in the court’s July 30, 2015 order, the temporary stay of removal
2 15-71420
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-71420