NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 16 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIO GARCIA-CAMEY, No. 16-70075
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-757-415
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 W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Mario Garcia-Camey, native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se 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 for substantial evidence
*
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).
the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (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. at 1241-42. We deny
the petition for review.
Garcia-Camey does not raise, and has thus waived, any challenge to the
agency’s dispositive determination that his asylum application was untimely. See
Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Garcia-Camey
failed to establish he was persecuted on account of a protected ground. See INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some
evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); 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 BIA did not err in finding that Garcia-Camey failed to establish
membership in a cognizable social group. 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
2
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 Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d
1070, 1080 (9th Cir. 2020) (particular social group must exist independently of the
harm asserted). Thus, Garcia-Camey’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Garcia-Camey 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 Guatemala. See
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of
torture). We reject Garcia-Camey’s contention that the agency applied the wrong
standard in analyzing his CAT claim.
As stated in the court’s May 10, 2016 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3