NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 30 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELIAS PINEDA-HERNANDEZ, No. 21-266 Agency No. Petitioner, A200-975-920 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 16, 2023** Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Elias Pineda-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for * 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). substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Pineda- Hernandez failed to establish the harm he experienced or fears in Mexico was or would be motivated by a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”); see also Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 506 (9th Cir. 2013) (“mistreatment motivated purely by personal retribution will not give rise to a valid asylum claim”); 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, Pineda-Hernandez’s withholding of removal claim fails. We do not address Pineda-Hernandez’s contentions as to whether his proposed particular social group is cognizable because the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. 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 denial of CAT protection because Pineda-Hernandez failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured 2 21-266 by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 21-266 21-266 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Pineda-Hernandez v. Garland 30 May 2023 Unpublished 9620f28d247d8c1b1cb3f03ae2eec638bb540df6
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals