VELASQUEZ VELASQUEZ v. BARR (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Amed Alfer Velasquez-Velasquez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition.

Whether a group constitutes a “particular social group” is a question of law that we review de novo, Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 665 (9th Cir. 2010), but we defer to the BIA’s interpretation of 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. See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016).

The BIA did not err in finding that Velasquez-Velasquez has not established membership in a cognizable social group. He has not established that “repatriated young males returning to Guatemala after a lengthy stay in the United States” or “Guatemalan citizens who have returned from the United States who are targets of kidnapping and extortion” would be perceived by society as a particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining cognizability standard) (citing Matter of M-E-G-V-, 26 I & N Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014)). Velasquez-Velasquez’s claim that he belongs to the social group of returning “Guatemalan adult male[s] who ․ previously resisted recruitment into the gangs [in Guatemala] and [who were] threatened with death as a result,” was never presented to the agency and is therefore unexhausted. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts lack jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). Finally, Velasquez-Velasquez has not established that he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner’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”). Thus, Velasquez-Velasquez’s withholding of removal claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.