NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SIMON ORTEGA-VAZQUEZ, Nos. 13-72795
13-74116
Petitioner,
Agency No. A205-321-010
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney MEMORANDUM*
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Simon Ortega-Vazquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) (no. 13-72795), and the
*
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).
BIA’s order denying his motion to reopen (no. 13-74116). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. 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 and we review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s
denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.
2010). We deny the petitions for review.
The agency did not err in finding that Ortega-Vazquez failed to 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 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.’”) (citation omitted); see also
Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding
“returning Mexicans from the United States” did not constitute a particular social
group). Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
Ortega-Vazquez otherwise failed to establish that any harm he fears in Mexico
would be on account of a protected ground. See Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d
1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2011) (a personal dispute, standing alone, does not constitute
2 13-72795
persecution based on a protected ground); 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, Ortega-Vazquez’s withholding of removal claim
fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Ortega-Vazquez failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See
Delgado-Ortiz, 600 F.3d at 1152 (petitioners’ generalized evidence of violence and
crime was not particular to petitioners and was insufficient for relief under CAT).
Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ortega-Vazquez’s
motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for cancellation of
removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D); Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th
Cir. 2010) (a motion to reopen will not be granted unless it establishes a prima
facie case for relief); see also Partap v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1173, 1175 (9th Cir.
2010) (no abuse of discretion in denying a motion to remand to apply for
cancellation of removal where petitioner did not tender any evidence showing
“exceptional and extremely unusual hardship”).
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-72795