NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS ALBERTO ALVARADO, AKA No. 17-73499
Eduardo Marauiega-Mata,
Agency No. A205-386-861
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2018**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Alberto Alvarado, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
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. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.
2008). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Alvarado
failed to establish that any harm he experienced or fears in Honduras was or would
be 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”); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir. 2008)
(rejecting petitioner’s claim where he “provided no evidence that his opposition to
the gang’s criminal activity was based on political opinion”), abrogated on other
grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013) (en
banc); see also 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
2 17-73499
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)). Thus, Alvarado’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Alvarado’s CAT
claim because Alvarado did not demonstrate it is more likely than not that he
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of
Honduras. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (2014)
(concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary “state action” for CAT
relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 17-73499
Carlos Alvarado v. Matthew Whitaker
Combined Opinion