BAYRON AGUSTO ORANTES DELCID, AKA Bayron Augusta Orantes, AKA Bayron Augusto… v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BAYRON AGUSTO ORANTES DELCID,
AKA Bayron Augusta Orantes, AKA
Bayron Augusto Orantes, AKA Byron
Agusto Orantes,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72387
Agency No. A205-720-347
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Bayron Agusto Orantes Delcid, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing 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
MAY 20 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 15-72387
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the
legal question of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the
extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes
and regulations. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020).
We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Id. at 1241. We
deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Orantes Delcid’s claim for asylum because
in his appeal to the BIA, he did not challenge the IJ’s determination that his asylum
application was untimely. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.
2004).
We review Orantes Delcid’s claim for withholding of removal,
notwithstanding the government’s contention that the issue was insufficiently
briefed. See Alcaraz v. INS, 384 F.3d 1150, 1161 (9th Cir. 2004). The agency did
not err in finding that Orantes Delcid failed to establish membership in a
cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th
Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular social group, “[t]he
applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a

-- 2 of 4 --

3 15-72387
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))); see also Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 855 (9th
Cir. 2009) (proposed group of young males in Guatemala who are targeted for
gang recruitment not cognizable), abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas
v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s conclusion that Orantes Delcid otherwise failed to establish
that he would be persecuted 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 gang members
bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Orantes Delcid’s withholding of
removal claim fails.
We also review the agency’s determination that Orantes Delcid failed to
establish that he is eligible for CAT protection. Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901,
914 (9th Cir. 2018) (“It is well-established that we may review any issue addressed
on the merits by the BIA, regardless of whether the petitioner raised it before the
agency.”). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Orantes Delcid failed to show it is more likely than not he 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).

-- 3 of 4 --

4 15-72387
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 4 of 4 --