NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LESTER MARTINEZ SALGADO, No. 18-72205
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-350-314
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted November 12, 2019
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER, BERZON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Lester Martinez Salgado seeks review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ decision to deny his request for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition.
Where, as here, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopts and
affirms the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and provides additional
reasoning, the panel reviews both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. Gonzalez-Caraveo
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2018). We review denials of asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture for
substantial evidence, upholding the agency’s findings unless the evidence compels
a contrary result. See, e.g., Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.
2010). We review for abuse of discretion the determination that a crime is
particularly serious, rendering petitioner ineligible for asylum or withholding of
removal. Avendano-Hernandez v. Lynch, 800 F.3d 1072, 1077–78 (9th Cir. 2015).
1. We deny the petition as to Martinez Salgado’s asylum and withholding
claims. Neither the IJ nor the BIA abused its discretion in concluding that
Petitioner’s conviction was for a particularly serious crime, rendering him
statutorily ineligible for asylum or withholding. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii),
1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). Additionally, Martinez Salgado failed to show that he was a
member of a cognizable particular social group. Petitioner’s first proposed social
group, “Honduran witnesses to MS-13’s criminal activities who fail to abide by the
gang’s demands,” is not cognizable. See, e.g., Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d
1081, 1092–93 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (noting that “proposed social groups of
those generally opposed to gangs or resistant to gang recruitment” are not
cognizable for asylum or withholding). Petitioner failed to show that he is a
member of his proposed alternative social group, “Honduran persons taking
concrete steps to oppose gang membership and gang authority.”
2
2. We deny the petition as to Martinez Salgado’s claim for relief under the
Convention Against Torture. Substantial evidence, including a recent country
conditions report indicating that the government has been discharging large
numbers of police officers for corruption, supports the IJ’s and BIA’s finding that
any torture Petitioner might suffer if returned to Honduras will not occur with the
government’s acquiescence.
3. Martinez Salgado’s argument that the IJ and BIA lacked jurisdiction
because of deficiencies in his Notice to Appear is squarely foreclosed by our
decision in Karingithi v. Whitaker. See 913 F.3d 1158, 1159 (9th Cir. 2019) (initial
notice to appear need not include time and date of the hearing to vest jurisdiction in
immigration court).
DENIED.
3