NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OSCAR MARTINEZ-SUAREZ, No. 18-71514 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-786-477 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 21, 2019* Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Oscar Martinez-Suarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual * 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). findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that, even if Martinez-Suarez stated a cognizable social group, he failed to establish that the harm he suffered and fears was or would be on account of 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” (emphasis in original)); see also Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2001) (harm based on personal retribution is not persecution on account of a protected ground); 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.”). We reject Martinez-Suarez’s contention that the agency applied the wrong legal standard. Thus, Martinez-Suarez’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Martinez-Suarez failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by 2 18-71514 or with the consent or acquiescence of the government. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 18-71514 18-71514 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Oscar Martinez-Suarez v. William Barr 23 May 2019 Agency Unpublished ede20e1a09cba7dab0252593ac2660a23a989524
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals