NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DENIS E. PINEDA, AKA Denis Edgardo No. 15-72299
Pineda Valencia,
Agency No. A073-979-451
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 8, 2020**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Denis E. Pineda, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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 claims of due process violations in immigration
proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Pineda failed
to establish a nexus between the harm he experienced or fears in El Salvador and a
protected ground, including his family social group. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d
1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is
established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on
account of his membership in such group”); see also 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, Pineda’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Pineda 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 El Salvador. See
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of
torture).
2 15-72299
Pineda’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights fails. See
Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (requiring error to
prevail on a due process claim).
As stated in the Court’s October 19, 2015 order, the temporary stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-72299