NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 29 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE ALFONSO SALINAS ARREOLA, No. 19-72542 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-024-312 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 19, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Jose Alfonso Salinas Arreola, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order affirming and adopting an immigration judge’s (IJ) order denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184–85 (9th Cir. 2006). Because the BIA reviewed the IJ’s factual findings for clear error, we review “the reasons explicitly identified by the BIA, and then examine[s] the reasoning articulated in the IJ’s oral decision in support of those reasons.” Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008). For the reasons that follow, we deny the petition. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Salinas Arreola did not establish past persecution necessary for withholding of removal. See Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An applicant alleging past persecution has the burden of establishing that (1) his treatment rises to the level of persecution; (2) the persecution was on account of one or more protected grounds; and (3) the persecution was committed by the government, or by forces that the government was unable or unwilling to control.”). Salinas Arreola contends that he suffered past persecution in the form of violence and extortion by gangs, citing Ayala v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2017). While extortion and violence may rise to the level of persecution, Salinas Arreola failed to establish that the actions taken against him were on account of a protected ground of membership in a particular social group, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); see also id. § 1231(b)(3)(C). Notably, the acts of past persecution he alleges are 2 unrelated to his proposed social groups, both of which are forward-looking to his return to Mexico. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Salinas Arreola did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution necessary for withholding of removal. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir. 2009). Salinas Arreola does not provide a nexus between his alleged persecution and the particular social groups he proposes. Salinas Arreola’s future persecution contentions are indistinguishable from the type of random criminal acts we have repeatedly rejected as having no nexus to a protected ground. See generally ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals