ENRIQUE GOMEZ v. GARLAND (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Guillermo Enrique Gomez, 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 and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the legal question of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA's interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Id. at 1241. 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 in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not err in concluding that Gomez did not establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular social 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))). Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Gomez otherwise failed to establish the harm he fears in Guatemala would be on account of a protected ground. See 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”).

Gomez's contention that the BIA failed to consider evidence of the visibility of his decorative, not gang-related tattoos in its withholding analysis fails as unsupported by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the agency need not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record).

To the extent Gomez raises a new proposed particular social group in his opening brief, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).

Thus, Gomez's withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Gomez failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if he returned to Guatemala. See Andrade v. Lynch, 798 F.3d 1242, 1244-45 (9th Cir. 2015) (substantial evidence supported the agency's finding that petitioner being deported from a wealthier country with “decorative, not gang-related” tattoos failed to establish a clear probability of torture).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.