NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AUG 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
AMED ALFER VELASQUEZ- No. 14-72040
VELASQUEZ,
Agency No. A088-450-626
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.
Amed Alfer Velasquez-Velasquez, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
*
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).
application for withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252 and we deny in part and dismiss in part 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), but
we defer to the BIA’s interpretation of 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. See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176,
1184 (9th Cir. 2016).
The BIA did not err in finding that Velasquez-Velasquez has not established
membership in a cognizable social group. He has not established that “repatriated
young males returning to Guatemala after a lengthy stay in the United States” or
“Guatemalan citizens who have returned from the United States who are targets of
kidnapping and extortion” would be perceived by society as a particular 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)). Velasquez-Velasquez’s claim that he belongs to the social group of
returning “Guatemalan adult male[s] who . . . previously resisted recruitment into
the gangs [in Guatemala] and [who were] threatened with death as a result,” was
never presented to the agency and is therefore unexhausted. See Barron v.
2
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts lack jurisdiction to review
claims not presented to the agency). Finally, Velasquez-Velasquez has not
established that he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner’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, Velasquez-Velasquez’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3