Filed: Jul. 28, 2021
Latest Update: Jul. 30, 2021
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID RIVERA, No. 21-70098
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-317-571
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.
David Rivera1, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
*
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).
1
Although petitioner’s name appears as “David Rivera” in the agency
decisions, petition for review, and the briefs, he testified during removal
proceedings that his real name is “Jose Ecirdo Benitez Rivera.”
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir.
2020). 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. See
id. at 1241-42. We
deny the petition for review.
We do not address Rivera’s contentions regarding the timeliness of his
asylum application because the BIA did not deny relief on that ground. See
Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing
the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Rivera failed
to establish he was or would be harmed on account his lack of access to education
and career opportunities. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483,
112 S.Ct.
812,
117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some evidence of
[motive], direct or circumstantial”); 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
2 21-70098
protected ground”).
The BIA did not err in concluding that Rivera’s proposed particular social
group of “low-income taxi drivers” was not cognizable. 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))).
Thus, Rivera’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Rivera failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Honduras. See Wakkary
v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture).
Rivera’s contention that the agency ignored evidence or otherwise erred in
its analysis of his claims fails. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th
Cir. 2010) (the agency adequately considered evidence and sufficiently announced
its decision); Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to
prevail on a due process claim); see also Jiang v. Holder,
754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th
Cir. 2014) (reviewing de novo claims of due process violations in immigration
proceedings).
3 21-70098
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4 21-70098
