TOVAR ORTEGA v. BARR (2019)

MEMORANDUM *

Alex Jobany Tovar Ortega, 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 decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).¹ 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. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not err in finding Tovar Ortega did not establish past persecution and a fear of future persecution due to membership in a particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that 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))); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding 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”). Thus, Tovar Ortega’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Tovar Ortega failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Tovar Ortega does not challenge the BIA’s denial of asylum, so we do not consider it.