Pineda-Hernandez v. Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 30 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELIAS PINEDA-HERNANDEZ, No. 21-266
Agency No.
Petitioner, A200-975-920
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 16, 2023**
Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Elias Pineda-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review 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).
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947
F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Pineda-
Hernandez failed to establish the harm he experienced or fears in Mexico was or
would be motivated by a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d
1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is
established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on
account of his membership in such group”); see also Madrigal v. Holder, 716
F.3d 499, 506 (9th Cir. 2013) (“mistreatment motivated purely by personal
retribution will not give rise to a valid asylum claim”); 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, Pineda-Hernandez’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
We do not address Pineda-Hernandez’s contentions as to whether his
proposed particular social group is cognizable because the BIA did not deny
relief on these grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829
(9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the
grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT protection because
Pineda-Hernandez failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured
2 21-266
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).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 21-266