Nasario Lopez v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 3 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NASARIO ALBA LOPEZ, No. 19-70866
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-318-304
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Nasario Alba Lopez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
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 the legal question
of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that
deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and
regulations. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Id. at 1241. We
deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in concluding that Lopez’s proposed particular social
group was not cognizable. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir.
2016) (to demonstrate membership in a particular social group, an 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. at
237))).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lopez failed
to establish that the harm he experienced or fears was or would be on account of a
political opinion or any other protected ground. See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405
F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005) (to establish a nexus to a political opinion ground,
petitioner must show “(1) that [he] had either an affirmative or imputed political
opinion, and (2) that [he was] targeted on account of that opinion.”); see also
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be
2 19-70866
free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang
members bears no nexus to a protected ground”).
Thus, Lopez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Lopez 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 Guatemala. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
Lopez’s contentions as to jurisdiction over his removal proceedings under
Pereira v. Sessions, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), fail under Aguilar-
Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (“the lack of time, date, and
place in the NTA sent to [petitioner] did not deprive the immigration court of
jurisdiction”).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 19-70866