NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 13 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADRIAN ROJAS ORTA, No. 15-72267
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-245-973
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 9, 2020**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Adrian Rojas Orta, 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 for substantial evidence 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).
agency’s factual findings, including determinations regarding social
distinction. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We
review de novo the legal question of whether a particular social group is
cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation
of the governing statutes and regulations. Id. We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rojas Orta
failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears in Mexico and a protected
ground. 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”);
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”).
The agency did not err in finding that Rojas Orta failed to establish
membership in a gang recruitment-based social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842
F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a
particular social 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))).
2 15-72267
Thus, Rojas Orta’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Rojas Orta 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).
The record does not support Rojas Orta’s contentions that the agency failed
to consider evidence, ignored arguments, or otherwise erred in its analysis of his
claims. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need
not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592,
603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA
reviewed the record).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-72267