FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 9 2022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ADOLFO JESUS VALLE No. 21-70035
VILLALOBOS,
Agency No. A095-008-602
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 7, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: IKUTA, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Adolfo Jesus Valle Villalobos, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks
review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his
appeal of a decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his applications for
*
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).
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). “Where, as here, the BIA cites [Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872
(BIA 1994)] and also provides its own review of the evidence and law, we review
both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions.” Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th
Cir. 2011). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and the BIA’s determination that
Valle Villalobos did not carry his burden of establishing eligibility for withholding
of removal. The BIA reasonably concluded that Valle Villalobos’s proposed
particular social group (“PSG”) of “El Salvadorans who are victims of gang
violence” is not cognizable, because it is not sufficiently particular or socially
distinct. We have previously upheld determinations that similarly defined groups
were not cognizable PSGs. See, e.g., Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886,
890 (9th Cir. 2021) (upholding the BIA’s determination that the proposed PSG of
“minor Christian males who oppose gang membership” was not cognizable).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Valle Villalobos’s
proposed PSG of “El Salvadorans who return to El Salvador from the United States
and are targeted by gang members because they are perceived to be wealthy” lacks
sufficient particularity or social distinction. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816
F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (upholding the agency’s determination that the
2
proposed PSG of “imputed wealthy Americans” was not cognizable). Valle
Villalobos did not present evidence that either proposed PSG has clear boundaries
or is perceived as distinct in Salvadoran society. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d
1125, 1137–38 (9th Cir. 2016).
Nor did the BIA err in concluding that even if Valle Villalobos’s proposed
PSG of “family members of those targeted by gangs” was cognizable, Valle
Villalobos had not shown that a reason for his feared future persecution would be
his membership in that group. Valle Villalobos did not provide evidence that his
nephew was killed due to his membership in the proposed PSG rather than for
financial reasons, and “[a]n alien’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.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010).1
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Valle Villalobos’s
application for CAT relief. Valle Villalobos failed to present any evidence of past
torture and did not present any evidence that he would be subject to a
1
To the extent Valle Villalobos attempts to argue that there is a “pattern or
practice” of persecution against a group of persons similarly situated to him on
account of a protected ground, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(iii)(A), he failed to
exhaust this argument, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to consider it, see Barron
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
3
particularized risk of torture by or with the acquiescence of any El Salvadoran
official upon his return to El Salvador.
PETITION DENIED.
4