JOSE BETANCOURT FELIPE, AKA Jose Betancord v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE BETANCOURT FELIPE, AKA Jose
Betancord,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71829
Agency No. A206-410-286
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Jose Betancourt Felipe, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications 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
NOV 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-71829
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 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 the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Betancourt
Felipe failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of his
membership in a family-based particular social group. 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”). As to Betancourt Felipe’s proposed group of males
who do not comply with the requests of gangs, the BIA did not err in concluding
that Betancourt Felipe failed to establish membership in a cognizable particular
social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (to
demonstrate membership in a particular social 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))); Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-55 (9th Cir. 2009)

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-71829
(particular social group of young men in Guatemala who resist gang recruitment
not cognizable), abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707
F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Thus, Betancourt Felipe’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.
We do not address Betancourt Felipe’s contention as to persecution because
the BIA did not deny relief on this ground. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657
F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider
only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Betancourt Felipe 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).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --