FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
AUG 27 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE LUIS ACEVEDO, No. 16-73116
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-447-851
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.
Jorge Luis Acevedo (“Acevedo”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for
withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and
*
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).
protection 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), 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).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Acevedo 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”). Otherwise, the agency’s
determination that Acevedo failed to establish a cognizable social group is
supported. 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
2
2014))). Thus, in the absence of nexus or a protected ground, Acevedo’s
withholding claim fails. In light of our conclusion, we reject Acevedo’s contention
that the case should be remanded pursuant to Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d
351 (9th Cir. 2017).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief. The record
does not compel the conclusion that Acevedo is “more likely than not” to be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if he returns to
Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); see also Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040,
1047 (9th Cir. 2009). Thus, Acevedo’s CAT claim also fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3