NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 11 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BOEMAR ANGEL ROBLERO-GUZMAN, No. 17-71078
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-721-491
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 6, 2020**
Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Boemar Angel Roblero-Guzman, 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 (“IJ”) 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
*
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).
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. Garcia-Milian v.
Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We review de novo due process
claims in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir.
2014). We deny the petition for review.
As to asylum and withholding of removal, the agency did not err in finding
that Roblero-Guzman’s social group of perceived wealthy returnees is 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. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016)
(concluding that “imputed wealthy Americans” returning to Mexico does not
constitute a particular social group). Roblero-Guzman’s contention that the IJ had
a duty to develop a new particular social group fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Roblero-
2 17-71078
Guzman is ineligible for relief because he failed to establish that he made any open
and concrete steps to oppose gangs or cartels, or had a political opinion imputed to
him. Cf. Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077, 1084-85 (9th Cir. 2014); see also
Sanjaa v. Sessions, 863 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2017) (applicant must establish
persecution “on account of” one of the “statutorily protected grounds”); Barrios v.
Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting political opinion claim where
petitioner did not present sufficient evidence of political or ideological opposition
to the gang’s ideals or that the gang imputed a particular political belief to the
petitioner).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Roblero-
Guzman otherwise failed to establish the harm he fears in Mexico would be on
account of a protected ground. See 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”).
We reject as unsupported by the record Roblero-Guzman’s contentions that
the BIA failed to address his evidence and arguments.
Thus, Roblero-Guzman’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Roblero-Guzman’s contentions
as to whether his asylum application was untimely. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371
F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (as a general rule courts and agencies are not
3 17-71078
required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the
results they reach).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Roblero-Guzman 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4 17-71078