United States v. 2020-04-10 | 17-71190 | ARTURO CRUZ FUENTES V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARTURO EDUARDO CRUZ FUENTES,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 17-71190

Agency No. A205-712-059

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 7, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Arturo Eduardo Cruz Fuentes, 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 application for 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.

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED

APR 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 17-71190
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.
The agency did not err in finding that Cruz Fuentes failed to establish
membership in a cognizable social group. 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 Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d
1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding “returning Mexicans from the United
States” was overbroad and did not constitute a particular social group). Substantial
evidence supports the agency’s determination that Cruz Fuentes failed to
demonstrate that the harm he experienced or fears in Mexico was or 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”).
The record does not support Cruz Fuentes’ contentions that the BIA failed to

3 17-71190
consider evidence, ignored arguments, or otherwise erred in its analysis of his
claim. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (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). Thus, Cruz Fuentes’ withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Cruz Fuentes 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
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of
torture).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.