URIEL YUVINI MALDONADO- BARRIOS, AKA Tereso Hernandez Chable, AKA Uriel Yuvini Maldonado v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
URIEL YUVINI MALDONADO-
BARRIOS, AKA Tereso Hernandez Chable,
AKA Uriel Yuvini Maldonado,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-73196
Agency No. A205-314-981
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Uriel Yuvini Maldonado-Barrios, 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
* 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
FEB 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-73196
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. 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.
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not err in finding that Maldonado-Barrios did not 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))). In light of this conclusion, we need not reach
Maldonado-Barrios’s contentions as to nexus. Thus, Maldonado-Barrios’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-73196
Maldonado-Barrios failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government.
See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2014).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --