Denis E. PINEDA, aka Denis Edgardo Pineda Valencia, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: September 10, 2020
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Claudia Jasmine Lopez, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Claudia Lopez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, Kristen A. Giuffreda, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
Denis E. Pineda, 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 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 for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Pineda failed to establish a nexus between the harm he experienced or fears in El Salvador and a protected ground, including his family social group. 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”); see also 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”). Thus, Pineda's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Pineda 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 El Salvador. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture).
Pineda's contention that the BIA violated his due process rights fails. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
As stated in the Court's October 19, 2015 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
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.