FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AUG 26 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO MARQUEZ-FARIAS, No. 15-73774
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-297-746
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.
Francisco Marquez-Farias, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing Marquez’s
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying Marquez’s application 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).
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). 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). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we
deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in finding that Marquez did not establish membership in
a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir.
2016) (explaining cognizability standard) (citing Matter of M-E-G-V-, 26 I & N
Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014)). We have held that individuals returning to Mexico
from the United States who are believed to be wealthy are not a particular social
group. Barbosa v. Barr, 919 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir. 2019); 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).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Marquez otherwise
failed to establish he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground, as
Marquez articulated only a fear of general gang or cartel violence. 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
2
bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Marquez’s asylum and withholding
of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Marquez failed to show it is more likely than not that 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). Marquez presented background
evidence of widespread violence in Mexico, but this generalized evidence does not
compel a contrary conclusion. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th
Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too speculative).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3