NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS MARTINEZ-ANTONIO, No. 15-71060
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-117-893
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 18, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Luis Martinez-Antonio, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for 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,
*
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).
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. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.
2008). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in finding that Martinez-Antonio 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 determination that Martinez-
Antonio otherwise failed to demonstrate a nexus between the harm he fears in
Mexico 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 violence by gang members bears no nexus to a
protected ground”). Thus, Martinez-Antonio’s withholding of removal claim fails.
2
The BIA did not err in failing to address Martinez-Antonio’s contentions
regarding the submission of additional evidence because he failed to sufficiently
notify the BIA of an issue to decide. See Young v. Holder, 697 F.3d 976, 982 (9th
Cir. 2012), overruled on other grounds by Marinelarena v. Barr, 930 F.3d 1039
(9th Cir. 2019) (holding that “an argument to the BIA requires reasoning sufficient
to put the BIA on notice that it was called on to decide the issue”).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Martinez-Antonio failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
Mexico. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no
likelihood of torture established).
We reject as unsupported by the record Martinez-Antonio’s contentions that
the agency failed to conduct the proper analysis of his claims and sufficiently
explain its determinations.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3