Lucas Reyes Deleon v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUCAS ILDER REYES DELEON, No. 18-73115
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-208-686
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: McKEOWN and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT,***
District Judge.
Lucas Reyes de Leon, a native of Guatemala, petitions for review of a Board
of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying his applications for asylum,
*
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).
***
The Honorable Richard D. Bennett, United States District Judge for
the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Because the BIA reviewed the
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision de novo, we review the BIA’s decision and
any portion of the IJ decision the Board adopted. Shah v. INS, 220 F.3d 1062,
1067 (9th Cir. 2000). We review legal questions de novo and factual findings for
substantial evidence. Aden v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 1073, 1079 (9th Cir. 2021). We
deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Reyes de Leon did not
experience mistreatment that rose to the level of past persecution. See Gu v.
Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1019–21 (9th Cir. 2006). He credibly testified that he
did not seek professional medical attention, nor did he have scars or other lasting
injuries after he was beaten by members of the 18th Street gang. Thus, Reyes de
Leon failed to present “credible, direct, and specific evidence in the record of facts
that would support a reasonable fear” that he would be persecuted by members of
the 18th Street gang upon return to Guatemala. Rusak v. Holder, 734 F.3d 894,
896 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Further, the record does not compel reversal of the BIA’s finding that Reyes
de Leon’s claims were not based on a statutorily protected ground. Reyes de Leon
cannot obtain relief on account of his political opinion because he has alleged “no
facts in support of a political opinion, actual or imputed, beyond his refusal to join”
2
or sell drugs for the gang. Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 862 (9th Cir.
2009), abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081(9th Cir. 2013). And Reyes de Leon has not established that the particular social
groups he proposes are cognizable. See Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238,
1242 (9th Cir. 2020). Those proposed groups are 1) individuals who have reported
gang violence to the police, 2) young Guatemalan men who oppose gangs and
resisted gang recruitment efforts, 3) young men who oppose illegal activity and
resisted gang membership, and 4) long-term residents in the United States
returning to Guatemala. With respect to the first three groups, the record is replete
with general evidence of harmful gang activity, but devoid of society-specific
evidence, “such as country reports, background documents, or news articles,”
establishing that these groups are socially distinct within Guatemala. Id. at 1243.
And Reyes de Leon has not shown the requisite nexus between the fourth group
and the mistreatment he experienced from the 18th Street gang. See Zetino v.
Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief. Reyes
de Leon’s prior mistreatment did not rise to the level of persecution, so it was not
torture. See Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1217 (9th Cir. 2018). Likewise,
neither Reyes de Leon’s testimony nor the country-conditions evidence here
suggest that he is “more likely than not” to be tortured upon removal to Guatemala.
3
Id. (quoting Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 770 (9th Cir. 2011)).
PETITION DENIED.
4