Juan Contreras-Rodriguez v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN CONTRERAS-RODRIGUEZ, No. 16-70062
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-785-936
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.
Juan Contreras-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing Contreras-
Rodriguez’s appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying
Contreras-Rodriguez’s application for withholding of removal and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 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. Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184–85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in finding that Contreras-Rodriguez 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))).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Contreras-
Rodriguez otherwise failed to establish a nexus between the harm he fears and 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”).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Contreras-Rodriguez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by
2
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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3