NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 15 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OSCAR RECINOS AGUILAR, No. 19-71407 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-107-824 v. MEMORANDUM * 0F WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 2, 2020** 1F Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Memorandum by Judges WALLACE and CLIFTON, Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge BRESS Oscar Recinos Aguilar, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * 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). 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 factual findings for substantial evidence. Id. at 1241. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand. The BIA did not err in concluding that Aguilar 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 Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Aguilar otherwise failed to establish that the harm he experienced or fears in El Salvador was or would be 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”); Santos- 2 Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 746-47 (9th Cir. 2008) (resistance to a gang’s recruitment efforts alone does not constitute political opinion) abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013). To the extent Aguilar contends that the IJ and BIA failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in their analyses of his cognizability and nexus claims, those contentions fail as unsupported by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals