Alejandro Carrizoza Castro v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEJANDRO CARRIZOZA CASTRO, No. 15-73859
AKA Alejandro Castro Carrizoza,
Agency No. A205-056-429
Petitioner,
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.
Alejandro Carrizoza Castro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
Carrizoza Castro’s appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying
Carrizoza Castro’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
*
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).
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition.
We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163,
1166 (9th Cir. 2008), and we review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006).
The BIA did not err in finding that Carrizoza Castro did not establish
membership in a cognizable social group of young males returning to Mexico who
are perceived to be wealthy. 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 Barbosa v. Barr, 919 F.3d 1169, 1175 (9th Cir. 2019)
(applying case law in which similar social groups were proposed and finding that
individuals returning to Mexico from the United States who are believed to be
wealthy does not constitute a particular social group).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Carrizoza Castro
failed to establish that he would be persecuted as a member of his family. The IJ
correctly concluded that Carrizoza Castro failed to establish a nexus between that
social group and the harm he fears if returned to Mexico. See Ayala v. Holder, 640
2 15-73859
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” (emphasis in original)); 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, Carrizoza Castro’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Carrizoza Castro 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 Mexico. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d
829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too speculative); Garcia-Milian
v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that petitioner did
not establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-73859