eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2019-08

Carlos Aguilar Calderon v. William Barr ( 2019 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                              FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              AUG 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS AGUILAR CALDERON,                         No.   15-72343
Petitioner,                        Agency No. A096-316-038
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 7, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Aguilar-Calderon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application 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 voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
     and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition.
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. Singh v. Whitaker,
    914 F.3d 654
    , 658 (9th Cir. 2019).
Aguilar-Calderon identified that he was a member of a social group made up of
returning deportees who could be recruited by a gang. The agency did not err in
finding that Aguilar-Calderon failed to establish membership in a particular 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 Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder,
    600 F.3d 1148
    , 1151-52 (9th Cir.
2010).
To the extent Aguilar-Calderon claims he will be subject to persecution
based on general conditions of crime in Mexico, “an alien's desire to be free from
2
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). Thus, the BIA's decision is supported by substantial evidence.
We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination, made by the
IJ and adopted by the BIA, that Aguilar-Calderon is ineligible for voluntary
departure. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); Esquival-Garcia v. Holder,
    593 F.3d 1025
    , 1030
(9th Cir. 2010). Despite Aguilar-Calderon's arguments to the contrary, the IJ found
him ineligible because he made material misrepresentations regarding his
membership in a gang – a discretionary decision. Thus, we dismiss this portion of
the petition.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3