MAXIMO MENDEZ-MARIA, AKA Maximino Cristobal Mendez Orozco v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAXIMO MENDEZ-MARIA, AKA
Maximino Cristobal Mendez Orozco,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70781
Agency No. A205-320-748
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.
Maximo Mendez-Maria, 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
* 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 18-70781
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo,
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. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
The agency did not err in finding that Mendez-Maria 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))). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
determination that Mendez-Maria failed to establish that any harm he experienced
or fears in Guatemala 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-70781
gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Thus, Mendez-Maria’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Mendez-Maria 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 Aden
v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Mendez-Maria’s contentions regarding his
religious persecution claim because he failed to raise them to the BIA. See Barron
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --