United States v. 2020-08-19 | 15-70091 | JUVENAL GONZALEZ V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUVENAL GONZALEZ, AKA Juvenal
Gonzalez-Velasquez,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-70091

Agency No. A099-976-057

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted August 17, 2020
**

Before: TROTT, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Juvenal Gonzalez, 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 (“IJ”) 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

AUG 19 2020

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

2 15-70091
(“CAT”).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 also review de novo whether a petitioner has been afforded due process.
Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir. 2006). 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.
In his appeal to the BIA, Gonzalez did not challenge the IJ’s determinations
that he is ineligible for asylum and CAT protection. He also did not challenge the
IJ’s denial of his motion to continue his hearing so he could obtain more details
about his criminal history. We lack jurisdiction to consider those issues. See
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
The record does not support Gonzalez’s claim that the agency failed to
review and consider all evidence presented. See, e.g., Gonzalez-Caraveo v.
Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 894-95 (9th Cir. 2018) (“There is no indication that the IJ
or BIA did not consider all the evidence before them.”).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Gonzalez did not
establish a well-founded fear of persecution. Gonzalez has never been personally

3 15-70091
threatened or harmed. Moreover, his sister, Maria de Jesus, and his siblings
continue to live without incident in his hometown in Mexico. See Hakeem v. INS,
273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“An applicant’s claim of persecution upon
return is weakened, even undercut, when similarly situated family members
continue to live in the country without incident . . . .”) (citations omitted),
superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Ramadan v. Gonzalez, 479
F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007). Gonzalez also failed to establish membership in a
cognizable social group. See Conde Quevedo v Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1243 (9th
Cir. 2020) (concluding that a proposed social group of witnesses who reported
crimes to police lacked social distinction); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016
(9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’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.”). His withholding of removal claim therefore fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.