NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE OSVALDO MARAVILLA- No. 14-73264
HERNANDEZ,
Agency No. A087-589-839
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 6, 2020**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Jose Osvaldo Maravilla-Hernandez, 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 asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
*
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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252, and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Maravilla-Hernandez’s contentions
regarding a pattern or practice of persecution, humanitarian asylum, and
administrative closure because he did not raise these contentions before the
agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2004).
The BIA did not err in concluding that Maravilla-Hernandez failed to
establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d
1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (to demonstrate social group membership, “[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 Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738,
744–46 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that young men who resist gang violence in El
Salvador do not constitute a particular social group), abrogated in part by
Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013); Reyes, 842 F.3d
at 1138–40 (rejecting “deportees from the United States to El Salvador” as a
particular social group); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)
(“An alien’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,
2 14-73264
Maravilla-Hernandez’s asylum and withholding claims fail. We need not address
the agency’s alternative conclusion that his claim for asylum was untimely.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Maravilla-Hernandez failed to show he will more likely than not 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).
PETITION DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.
3 14-73264