NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 13 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ANTONIO ORTIZ-SALGUERO,                     No.   19-70937
AKA Jorge Alberto Ortiz-Contreras,
                                                 Agency No. A087-433-112
                Petitioner,

 v.                                              MEMORANDUM*

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted January 8, 2020**

Before:      CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Jose Antonio Ortiz-Salguero, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for

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

from an immigration judge’s 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 questions of law,

Cerezo v. Mukasey, 

, 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, 

, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review

for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder,

, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

      The agency did not err in finding Ortiz-Salguero failed to establish

membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 

,

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 Barrios v. Holder, 

,

854-55 (9th Cir. 2009) (young Guatemalan men who resist gang recruitment is not

a particular social group).

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ortiz-

Salguero failed to establish that the harm he suffered or fears in Guatemala was or

would be on account of his family membership or political opinion. See INS v.

Elias-Zacarias, 

, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some

evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622


                                         2                                    19-70937
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.”); 

(rejecting petitioner’s

contention that he was persecuted on account of his political opinion based on his

refusal to join a gang). Thus, Ortiz-Salguero’s asylum and withholding of removal

claims fail.

       Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Ortiz-Salguero 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, 

, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Delgado-Ortiz v.

Holder, 

, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and

crime in petitioner’s home country was insufficient to meet standard for CAT

relief).

       In light of this disposition, we need not reach Ortiz-Salguero’s remaining

contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 

, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts

and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they

reach).

       PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.




                                          3                                   19-70937