NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 7 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMAURY LUIS CARRERA, No. 15-72479
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-406-407
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.
Amaury Luis Carrera, 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 applications 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. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755
F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Carrera failed
to establish past harm in Mexico that rose to the level of persecution. See Lim v.
INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (persecution is an “extreme concept” that
includes the “infliction of suffering or harm”); see also INS. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502
U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992) (“To reverse the BIA finding we must find that the
evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it[.]”). Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Carrera failed to establish
that the harm he fears in Mexico would be on account of a protected ground. See
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483 (an applicant “must provide some evidence of
[motive], direct or circumstantial”); 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”).
2 15-72479
In addition, the agency did not err in finding that Carrera’s proposed social
group of was not cognizable. 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 Ramirez-Munoz v. Holder, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229
(9th Cir. 2016) (concluding “imputed wealthy Americans” returning to Mexico did
not constitute a particular social group); Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 945
(9th Cir. 2007) (holding that a “[t]attooed gang member” does not qualify as a
member of a particular social group).
Thus, Carrera’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Carrera failed to show 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).
We reject as unsupported by the record Carrera’s contention that the agency
3 15-72479
did not conduct a proper analysis of his claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4 15-72479