William Alfredo URQUILLA-PINO, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: December 09, 2020
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Alex Galvez, Counsel, Law Office Alex Galvez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anthony John Messuri, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent
William Alfredo Urquilla-Pino, 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”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the finding that Urquilla-Pino failed to establish he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground, where the evidence in the record does not show that membership in his proposed social groups motivated or would motivate the gang activity Urquilla-Pino fears. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A petitioner] must establish that any persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group.”) In addition, 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.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, Urquilla-Pino's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA's denial of CAT relief, where Urquilla-Pino 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 Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (“generalized evidence of violence and crime” insufficient for CAT relief). Urquilla-Pino's contention that the BIA failed to give his claim thorough consideration is unsupported. See Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771-72 (9th Cir. 2011).
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.