Edvin Argueta Gonzalez v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 23 2022
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    EDVIN JOEL ARGUETA GONZALEZ,                    No.    16-71637
    Petitioner,                     Agency No. A200-707-523
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
    General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted February 15, 2022**
    Before:      FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    Edvin Joel Argueta Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
    for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
    appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
    withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”),
    *
    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).
    and denying his request for voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by
    
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . 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. Conde Quevedo v. Barr,
    
    947 F.3d 1238
    , 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review for substantial evidence the
    agency’s factual findings. 
    Id. at 1241
    . We deny in part and dismiss in part the
    petition for review.
    Argueta Gonzalez does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination
    that his asylum application was time-barred and that he did not establish changed
    or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing. 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 Argueta Gonzalez’s asylum claim.
    The agency did not err in concluding that Argueta Gonzalez failed to
    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))). Substantial evidence
    2                                      16-71637
    supports the agency’s determination that Argueta Gonzalez otherwise failed to
    establish he was or would be persecuted on account 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”). Thus, Argueta Gonzalez’s
    withholding of removal claim fails.
    Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
    Argueta Gonzalez 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).
    We reject Argueta Gonzalez’s challenge to the BIA’s use of streamlining
    procedures, because the BIA’s final order was not a streamlined decision.
    We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of voluntary
    departure, and Argueta Gonzalez does not raise a legal or constitutional claim over
    which we retain jurisdiction. See 
    8 U.S.C. §§ 1252
    (a)(2)(B)(i), 1229c(f); Corro-
    Barragan v. Holder, 
    718 F.3d 1174
    , 1177 (9th Cir. 2013) (the court lacks
    jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of voluntary departure).
    The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
    mandate.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
    3                                  16-71637
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-71637

Filed Date: 2/23/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/23/2022