NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 5 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LILIAN M. PINEDA MONTEALEGRE, No. 15-70613
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-964-902
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 30, 2021**
Before: GRABER, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Lilian M. Pineda Montealegre, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum,
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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241–42 (9th Cir. 2020). We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Id. at 1241. We
deny the petition for review.
1. Pineda Montealegre does not challenge the agency’s determinations
that her application for asylum is time-barred or that she failed to establish
eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture.
2. The BIA did not err in concluding that Pineda Montealegre failed to
establish membership in a cognizable particular 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)).
In addition, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Pineda
Montealegre failed to establish that she would be persecuted on account of any
protected ground. See 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
2 15-70613
random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Thus,
her claim for withholding of removal fails.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-70613