ALEMAN RAMOS v. BARR (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Edgardo Manuel Aleman Ramos, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing an 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 de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the harm Ramos suffered in Honduras did not rise to the level of past persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that persecution is “an extreme concept” (quotation and citation omitted) ); Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing alone ․ constitute past persecution in only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm.” (quotation and citation omitted) ).

The agency did not err in finding that Ramos failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular 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 agency’s determination that Ramos otherwise failed to establish that any future harm he fears in Honduras would be on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (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-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 747 (9th Cir. 2008) (petitioner’s general aversion to gangs did not constitute a political opinion), abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013). Thus, Ramos’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Ramos’s CAT claim because Ramos did not demonstrate it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Honduras. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.