NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BERNARDO ELOTLAN-RIVERA, No. 15-72658
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-553-251
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 15, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Bernardo Elotlan-Rivera, 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 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.
*
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).
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. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA found that Elotlan-Rivera failed to establish that being a returnee to
Mexico or a person who resists gang recruitment were cognizable social groups.
The BIA did not err in its determination. 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))); see also Barbosa v. Barr, 919 F.2d 1169, 1175 (9th
Cir. 2019) (finding that individuals returning to Mexico from the United States
who are believed to be wealthy does not constitute a particular social group).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Elotlan-Rivera
failed to demonstrate that the harm he fears in Mexico would be on account of a
protected ground, including his religion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478,
2 15-72658
483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or
circumstantial,” emphasis in original); see also 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, Elotlan-Rivera’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Elotlan-Rivera 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).
The record does not support Elotlan-Rivera’s contentions that the agency
failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of his claims. See
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an
exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.
2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the
record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-72658