NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 16 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GERSON EDUARDO PUNAY- No. 16-73439 HERNANDEZ, AKA Gerson Eduardo Hernandez, AKA Gerson Hernandez Punay, Agency No. AKA Gerson Eduardo Hernandez-Punay, A089-956-622 AKA Gerson Punay, AKA Gerson Eduardo Punay, MEMORANDUM* Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 9, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW and LEE, Circuit Judges, and KENNELLY,*** District Judge. * 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). Punay-Hernandez’s unopposed motion to submit this case on the briefs is granted. *** The Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. Gerson Eduardo Punay-Hernandez, a citizen and native of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s denial of his applications for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition. We “review for substantial evidence factual findings underlying the denial of a withholding or CAT claim.” Flores-Vega v. Barr, 932 F.3d 878, 886 (9th Cir. 2019). We must affirm the agency’s decision “unless the evidence presented would compel a reasonable finder of fact to reach a contrary result.” Id.1 “Where, as here, the BIA has reviewed the IJ’s decision and incorporated portions of it as its own, we treat the incorporated parts of the IJ’s decision as the BIA’s.” Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 909 (9th Cir. 2018). Punay-Hernandez sought withholding of removal based on past persecution because of his membership in the social group of “family of gang members.” Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Punay-Hernandez failed to establish that the mistreatment he experienced in Guatemala was due to his relationship to his gang-member cousins. He acknowledged that some of those who threatened and robbed him did not know of his cousins’ gang affiliation, and 1 We refer to the IJ and BIA collectively as “the agency.” 2 he did not offer any evidence that his brother and nephew had been murdered because of their relationship to the cousins. An applicant who has not established past persecution must show a subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable fear of future persecution to be eligible for withholding of removal. Flores-Vega, 932 F.3d at 886. Punay- Hernandez claimed fear of future persecution because of his membership in two groups: persons returning to Guatemala after a lengthy stay in the United States and therefore perceived to be wealthy, and those who are relatives of gang members. The agency correctly concluded that the first is not a cognizable social group under the INA. See, e.g., Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059-60 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals