NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALFREDO GONZALEZ-OLGUIN, No. 19-71646
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-714-976
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Alfredo Gonzalez-Olguin, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of
removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
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.
The agency did not err in concluding that Gonzalez-Olguin did not establish
membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d
1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (to demonstrate membership in a particular social
group, an 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))); see also Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d
1148, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding the proposed social group “returning
Mexicans from the United States” lacked particularity).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Gonzalez-
Olguin otherwise failed to establish that the harm he fears would be on account of
a 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
random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”).
2 19-71646
Thus, Gonzalez-Olguin’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Gonzalez-Olguin failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Zheng v. Holder,
644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too speculative).
We reject as unsupported by the record Gonzalez-Olguin’s contentions that
the agency failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of his
claims.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 19-71646