Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Leonel Delatorre-Gonzalez v. William Barr, 17-71532 (2020)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Number: 17-71532 Visitors: 12
Filed: May 11, 2020
Latest Update: May 11, 2020
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 11 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LEONEL DELATORRE-GONZALEZ, No. 17-71532 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-322-295 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 6, 2020** Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Leonel Delatorre-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for rev
More
                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 11 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEONEL DELATORRE-GONZALEZ,                      No.    17-71532

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A205-322-295

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                               Submitted May 6, 2020**

Before:      BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

      Leonel Delatorre-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of

removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v.


      *
             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).
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 the petition for review.

      The agency did not err in finding that Delatorre-Gonzalez did not 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 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))).

      In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that

Delatorre-Gonzalez failed to establish that the harm he fears would be because of 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”), see

also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 
502 U.S. 478
, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide

some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); Barrios v. Holder, 
581 F.3d 849
, 856 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting political opinion claim where petitioner did not



                                          2                                      17-71532
present sufficient evidence of political or ideological opposition to the gang’s

ideals or that the gang imputed a particular political belief to the petitioner). Our

conclusion is not affected by the differing nexus standards applicable to asylum

and withholding of removal claims. Cf. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 
846 F.3d 351
,

360 (9th Cir. 2017) (discussing Zetino having drawn no distinction between the

standards where there was no nexus at all between the feared persecution and

political opinion).

      Thus, Delatorre-Gonzalez’s withholding of removal claim fails.

      Delatorre-Gonzalez does not challenge the agency’s denial of CAT relief.

See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 
706 F.3d 1072
, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not

specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we

deny the petition for review as to his CAT claim.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                           3                                    17-71532

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer