NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDGAR WILFREDO ALFARO-GARCIA, No. 15-70086
AKA Edgar Alfaro, AKA Edgar Wilfredo
Alfaro, AKA Jorge Contreras, AKA Edgar Agency No. A205-315-788
Wilfredo Garcia,
Petitioner, MEMORANDUM*
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Edgar Wilfredo Alfaro-Garcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for
*
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).
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. 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. Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for
review.
Alfaro-Garcia does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that
his asylum application was untimely and that he failed to establish any changed or
extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimeliness. See Lopez-Vasquez v.
Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and
argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
The BIA did not err in finding that Alfaro-Garcia did not 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
2
determination that Alfaro-Garcia otherwise failed to demonstrate a nexus between
the harm he experienced or fears in El Salvador and a protected ground. See Guo
v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (an applicant for withholding of
removal must demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be subject to
persecution on account of a protected ground); 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, Alfaro-Garcia’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Alfaro-Garcia failed to show that it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El
Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not reach Alfaro-Garcia’s contentions as to whether he was convicted
of a particularly serious crime. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th
Cir. 2010) (the court’s review is limited to the actual grounds relied upon by the
BIA).
To the extent Alfaro-Garcia’s motion, filed at Docket Entry No. 12, seeks to
supplement the record or his arguments in support of this petition for review, it is
denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3