NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
JUL 7 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HENRY ROBERTO MOLINA-
CONTRERAS-CONTRERAS,
No. 18-73410
Petitioner,
Agency No. A073-698-219
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 11, 2021
Submission Withdrawn March 24, 2021
Resubmitted July 7, 2021**
Las Vegas, Nevada
Before: BENNETT and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and HARPOOL,*** District
Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.
Petitioner Henry Roberto Molina-Contreras-Contreras timely seeks review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of relief from removal. Applying the legal
standards applicable to membership in a protected group, see 8 U.S.C. §
1231(b)(3), and the Convention Against Torture (CAT), we deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Molina-
Contreras-Contreras failed to establish a nexus between any harm and his
membership in a family social group. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016
(9th Cir. 2010) (reviewing the agency’s factual findings under the deferential
“substantial evidence” standard). In order for Molina-Contreras to establish that he
is entitled to withholding of removal he must demonstrate that it is more likely
than not that he will be persecuted in Guatemala on account of a protected group. 8
U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); see Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 356 (9th Cir.
2017). Molina-Contreras failed to establish that his alleged membership in a
particular social group will be a reason for his persecution. Id. at 357-59.
The BIA found that Molina-Contreras presented no testimony or evidence
that established gang members sought to harm him because of his status as a
family member, or any other statutorily protected reason. Rather, it appeared that
2
they sought to harm him because of his interference with their extortion activities.
Molina-Contreras’s argument that the BIA abused its discretion by failing to
analyze Molina-Contreras’s claim of membership in a protected group has no
merit, as the BIA and IJ both discussed this claim and found it did not meet the
withholding of removal requirements.
2. The BIA and the IJ applied the correct legal standards to Molina-
Contreras’s claim under the Convention Against Torture, and substantial evidence
supports the denial of that relief. See Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th
Cir. 2008) (holding that we review de novo claims of legal error); Riera-Riera v.
Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 2016) (reviewing for substantial evidence the
denial of CAT relief). Molina-Contreras’s testimony that a policeman advised him
“you’d better leave because that’s a very dangerous gang,” coupled with the
Country Report identifying widespread corruption in Guatemala, does not establish
a likelihood of future torture in Guatemala with the acquiescence of the
government.
3. The agency had jurisdiction over the underlying removal proceedings.
While aliens have a right to fair procedures, they have no constitutional right to
force the government to re-adjudicate a final removal order by unlawfully
3
reentering the country. Morales-Izquierdo v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 484, 498 (9th Cir.
2007). Molina-Contreras’s argument that a putative notice to appear that fails to
designate the specific time or place of the noncitizen’s removal proceedings is not
a valid notice to appear under Immigration and Nationality Act § 239(a), see
Pereira v. Sessions, 128 S. Ct. 2105, 2114 (2018), fails because the Ninth Circuit
held in Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1162 (9th Cir. 2019), that Pereira
did not apply to the jurisdiction of proceedings.
PETITION DENIED.
4