Dickner Alvaro Lopez-Escobar v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DICKNER ALVARO LOPEZ-ESCOBAR,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71825
Agency No. A200-630-710
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Dickner Alvaro Lopez-Escobar, 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 asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
* 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
OCT 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-71825
(“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 determination 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. Silaya v.
Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Lopez-Escobar established
changed or extraordinary circumstances excused his untimely asylum application.
See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.4(a)(4), (5); Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088, 1091-92
(9th Cir. 2010).
We reject Lopez-Escobar’s challenge to the BIA’s determination that his
proposed social group is not cognizable, because the social group he proposed did
not meet the particularity or the social distinction requirements, 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)), and Lopez-
Escobar otherwise failed to establish he would be persecuted on account of a
protected ground, see Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-71825
[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,
Lopez-Escobar’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Lopez-Escobar failed to establish it is more likely than not he would be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. See Silaya,
524 F.3d at 1073.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --