NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN PABLO MORALES, No. 16-70691
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-969-030
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.
Juan Pablo Morales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing Morales’s appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Morales’s 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).
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. Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184–85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Morales has waived any challenge to the agency’s dispositive determination
that his asylum application was untimely. Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, Morales’s asylum claim fails.
As to withholding of removal, the BIA did not err in finding that Morales
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))).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Morales
otherwise failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears and 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
2
violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). 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).
Thus, Morales’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Morales 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 Mexico. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3