Alfredo Galeas-Villeda v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 27 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALFREDO GALEAS-VILLEDA, No. 14-73007
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-761-270
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 25, 2020**
Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Alfredo Galeas-Villeda, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum as
untimely and on the merits, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law, 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
When this case was last before the Court, the parties agreed to a remand to
allow the BIA the opportunity to provide further consideration in light of
Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013). In Henriquez-Rivas,
we held that the BIA had erred by rejecting a proposed particular social group
without considering record evidence that supported the petitioner’s claim. 707
F.3d at 1091-92. On remand in this case, the BIA examined the record and noted
that it contained evidence of “ongoing and widespread violence by criminal gangs
in Honduras.” The BIA held, however, that the record “does not sufficiently show
that young males who oppose gangs and refuse to join are perceived, considered,
or recognized by Honduran society to be a distinct social group.” The BIA further
held that Galeas-Villeda’s anti-gang opinions failed to establish persecution on
account of a political or imputed political opinion.
The agency did not err in concluding that Galeas-Villeda had failed to
establish persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of his
2 14-73007
membership in a cognizable social group or his political opinion. See Reyes v.
Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership
in a particular social 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 Ramos-
Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 858-62 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that young
Honduran men who have been recruited by gangs but refuse to join does not
constitute a particular social group or political opinion), abrogated in part by
Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Galeas-Villeda
failed to establish that the harm he suffered or fears in Honduras was or would be
on account of a protected ground. See Ramos-Lopez, 563 F.3d at 862 (refusal to
join gang was not a political opinion); see also 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”).1 Thus, Galeas-Villeda’s asylum and withholding of
1
To the extent that Galeas-Villeda asserts persecution based on harm his family
members may have experienced, we lack jurisdiction to consider this unexhausted
claim. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks
jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).
3 14-73007
removal claims fail.2
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Galeas-Villeda 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 Honduras. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Delgado-Ortiz v.
Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and
crime in petitioner’s home country was insufficient to meet standard for CAT
relief). We reject Galeas-Villeda’s contention that the agency failed to properly
consider his CAT claim. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.
2010) (the BIA adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced its
decision).
PETITION FOR REVIEW IS DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
2
Because Galeas-Villeda’s asylum claim fails on the merits, we need not address
whether his asylum application was timely filed.
4 14-73007