NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 12 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DIEGO RODOLFO RIVAS-ESCOBAR, No. 17-72324
Petitioner, Agency No. A202-149-211
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 9, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: RAWLINSON, BADE, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Diego Rodolfo Rivas-Escobar (Rivas), a citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of
an Immigration Judge (IJ) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
*
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).
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 We review
for substantial evidence and may grant relief only if the record compels a contrary
conclusion. Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2021). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.2
Substantial evidence supports the denial of asylum and withholding of
removal. “To be eligible for asylum, a petitioner has the burden to demonstrate a
likelihood of ‘persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race,
religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’”
Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1059 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). Rivas alleges that, if
returned to El Salvador, he will be persecuted because of his membership in a
proposed social group consisting of Salvadoran men who have “taken concrete steps
to resist and refuse recruitment by a criminal organization.” Even assuming that
Rivas’s proposed social group is cognizable, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
conclusion that Rivas has not shown that he took any “concrete step” to resist a
criminal organization, and therefore has not shown membership in his proposed
social group.
1
The government’s motion for judicial administrative closure, Dkt. No. 44, is
denied. See Sarkar v. Garland, 39 F.4th 611, 617–21 (9th Cir. 2022).
2
Before the BIA, Rivas did not challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT protection, nor does
he raise that claim here. Any such claim is thus unexhausted and forfeited. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004); Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94
F.3d 1256, 1260 (9th Cir. 1996).
2
In addition, even if Rivas could show that he was a member of a cognizable
social group, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Rivas has
not established the required nexus between his feared persecution and a protected
ground. As the BIA recognized, Rivas’s fears stem from generalized crime and
violence in El Salvador, which does not establish a nexus to a protected ground. See
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that a “desire to be
free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang
members bears no nexus to a protected ground”).
PETITION DENIED.
3