NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 21 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RONALD LOPEZ-GARCIA, AKA Alex No. 17-71216 Garcia, AKA Reynaldolpe Garcia, AKA Ronald Garcia, AKA Ronaldo Garcia-Lopez, Agency No. A206-411-917 AKA Alejandro Francisco Lopez, AKA Ronald Rednaldo Lopezgarcia, MEMORANDUM* Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 19, 2022** Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Ronald Lopez-Garcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal * 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). from an 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 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. Lopez-Garcia does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination that his asylum application was time-barred and that he did not establish changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing. 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 Lopez-Garcia’s asylum claim. The BIA did not err in concluding that Lopez-Garcia failed to establish membership in a cognizable particular 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 2 17-71216 Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lopez-Garcia otherwise failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account 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”). Thus, Lopez-Garcia’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Lopez-Garcia 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 El Salvador. See Aden v. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals