Brian Ordaz v. William Barr ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIAN MANUEL ORDAZ, AKA No. 18-73436
Youngster,
Agency No. A205-118-472
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Brian Manuel Ordaz, 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 jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, Cerezo v. Mukasey,
512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to
the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th
Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in finding that Ordaz failed to establish membership
in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir.
2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular 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))); see also Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229
(9th Cir. 2016) (concluding that “imputed wealthy Americans” returning to Mexico
does not constitute a particular social group). Substantial evidence supports the
agency’s determination that Ordaz otherwise failed to establish that the harm he
fears in Mexico 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.”). Thus, Ordaz’s withholding of removal
2 18-73436
claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Ordaz failed to show it is more likely than not that he would 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); Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1033-35
(concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary state action for CAT
relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 18-73436