NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 29 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ALFONSO SALINAS ARREOLA, No. 19-72542
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-024-312
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2020**
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Jose Alfonso Salinas Arreola, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order
affirming and adopting an immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying his applications
for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s
factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182,
1184–85 (9th Cir. 2006). Because the BIA reviewed the IJ’s factual findings for
clear error, we review “the reasons explicitly identified by the BIA, and then
examine[s] the reasoning articulated in the IJ’s oral decision in support of those
reasons.” Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008). For the reasons
that follow, we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Salinas
Arreola did not establish past persecution necessary for withholding of removal.
See Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An applicant
alleging past persecution has the burden of establishing that (1) his treatment rises
to the level of persecution; (2) the persecution was on account of one or more
protected grounds; and (3) the persecution was committed by the government, or
by forces that the government was unable or unwilling to control.”). Salinas
Arreola contends that he suffered past persecution in the form of violence and
extortion by gangs, citing Ayala v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2017). While
extortion and violence may rise to the level of persecution, Salinas Arreola failed
to establish that the actions taken against him were on account of a protected
ground of membership in a particular social group, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); see
also id. § 1231(b)(3)(C). Notably, the acts of past persecution he alleges are
2
unrelated to his proposed social groups, both of which are forward-looking to his
return to Mexico.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Salinas
Arreola did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution necessary for
withholding of removal. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir.
2009). Salinas Arreola does not provide a nexus between his alleged persecution
and the particular social groups he proposes. Salinas Arreola’s future persecution
contentions are indistinguishable from the type of random criminal acts we have
repeatedly rejected as having no nexus to a protected ground. See generally Ochoa
v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1166, 1170–72 (9th Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds
by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc); Gormley
v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2004). Because Salinas Arreola cannot
demonstrate that he would be targeted for persecution on the basis of a protected
ground, his claim for withholding of removal fails.1
Similarly, we find substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination
that Salinas Arreola failed to establish a claim for protection under the CAT. To
obtain CAT relief, he must show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if he is returned to Mexico.
1
Because Salinas Arreola failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground, we
need not address whether Salinas Arreola’s proposed social groups are cognizable.
3
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). Salinas Arreola’s
allegations of generalized gang violence do not establish that he will be tortured by
gangs “at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official
or other person acting in an official capacity” if he is returned to Mexico. Id. See
also Delgado-Ortiz, 600 F.3d at 1152.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket No. 1) is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4