FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AUG 23 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS ENRIQUE PINEDA-RODRIGUEZ, No. 15-73498
AKA Cholo, AKA View,
Agency No. A095-730-450
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 7, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Luis Enrique Pineda-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying his applications for
*
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).
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Whether a group constitutes a “particular social group” is a question of law
that we review de novo. Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 665 (9th Cir. 2010).
We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006).
The BIA did not err in its conclusion that Pineda-Rodriguez 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’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-,
26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). Thus, Pineda-Rodriguez’s withholding of
removal claim fails.1
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Pineda-
Rodriguez did not establish that he was more likely than not to be tortured by or
1
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 v. Holder having drawn no
distinction between the standards where there was no nexus at all to a protected
ground).
2
with the consent or acquiescence of the government upon his return to Honduras.
Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1095 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejecting petitioner’s
CAT claim because he failed to present an “objective basis of fear” and that “he
would most likely be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a government
official”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3