United States v. 2020-03-11 | 19-70720 | JORGE GREGORIO-GERONIMO V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JORGE GREGORIO-GERONIMO; et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-70720

Agency Nos. A208-125-115
A208-117-994
A208-117-995

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted March 3, 2020
**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Jorge Gregorio-Geronimo and his family, natives and citizens of Guatemala,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence

*
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

MAR 11 2020

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

2 19-70720
the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th
Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish that the harm they experienced or fear was or would be on
account of a protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir.
2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant
must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in
such group”); 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”); Barrios
v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting a political opinion claim
where petitioner did not present sufficient evidence of political or ideological
opposition to the gang’s ideals or that the gang imputed a particular political belief
to the petitioner). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Gregorio-Geronimo failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala.
See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.