Amaury Luis CARRERA, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: May 07, 2020
Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Victor Daniel Nieblas, Esquire, Litigation Counsel, Law Office of Victor D. Nieblas, City of Industry, CA, for Petitioner Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Liza Murcia, Attorney, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Amaury Luis Carrera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum, 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. 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 Carrera failed to establish past harm in Mexico that rose to the level of persecution. See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (persecution is an “extreme concept” that includes the “infliction of suffering or harm”); see also INS. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (“To reverse the BIA finding we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it[.]”). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Carrera failed to establish that the harm he fears in Mexico would be on account of a protected ground. See Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483, 112 S.Ct. 812 (an applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); 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”).
In addition, the agency did not err in finding that Carrera’s proposed social group of was not cognizable. 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))); see also Ramirez-Munoz v. Holder, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding “imputed wealthy Americans” returning to Mexico did not constitute a particular social group); Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 945 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that a “[t]attooed gang member” does not qualify as a member of a particular social group).
Thus, Carrera’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Carrera failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as unsupported by the record Carrera’s contention that the agency did not conduct a proper analysis of his claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.