NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FAUSTINO MEZA-ESPINOZA, No. 17-70232
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-114-490
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 3, 2020**
Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Faustino Meza-Espinoza, 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,
*
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).
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. Garcia-Milian v. Holder,
755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in finding that Meza-Espinoza failed to establish
membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d
1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular
social 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, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2019) (concluding that “individuals
‘returning to Mexico [from] the United States [who] are believed to be wealthy’”
was too broad to constitute a cognizable social group); Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch,
816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding “imputed wealthy Americans”
returning to Mexico did not constitute a particular social group). Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s determination that Meza-Espinoza otherwise failed
to establish that he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be
2
free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang
members bears no nexus to a protected ground”).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Meza-Espinoza failed to show that it is more likely than not he would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico.
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The record does not support Meza-Espinoza’s contention that the agency
failed to consider all relevant evidence or otherwise erred in considering CAT
relief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3