Tiburcio Carrillo Cruz v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TIBURCIO CARRILLO CRUZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 21-1178
Agency No.
A095-012-908
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 7, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN, R. NELSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Tiburcio Carrillo Cruz, a citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his
appeal from a decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his applications for
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s
legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. See
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as
provided by 9TH CIR. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
FILED
DEC 12 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 2020). Under the latter standard,
“the administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable
adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B). We deny the petition.
1. An IJ denied Petitioner’s applications for withholding of removal and
CAT protection. The BIA affirmed. Petitioner timely appeals.
2. Petitioner failed to show a “clear probability” of persecution on account
of a protected ground, as required for withholding of removal. Garcia v. Holder,
749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted); see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A).
Petitioner proposed a circular social group of “victims of gang violence.”
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner’s proposed
group is neither particular nor socially distinct, and thus is not a cognizable social
group. See Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2020); see also
Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1080 (9th Cir. 2020) (stating that it is a
“well-established principle that a particular social group must exist independently
of the harm asserted”). Accordingly, Petitioner’s withholding of removal claim
fails. See Diaz-Reynoso, 968 F.3d at 1084 (“[I]t is the applicant’s burden to
demonstrate the existence of a cognizable particular social group.” (citations
omitted)).
3. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner

-- 2 of 3 --

3
failed to show that, if removed, he more likely than not would be tortured by or
with the acquiescence of a Guatemalan public official. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.16(c)(2). Petitioner does not challenge the IJ’s findings that his past
experiences did not rise to the level of torture, see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(i), that
it would be reasonable for him to relocate to avoid the violence he has experienced,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(ii), or that his country conditions evidence did not
reveal “gross, flagrant[,] or mass violations of human rights” in Guatemala; see
also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)(iii). Petitioner cites only generic evidence of
violence in Guatemala on appeal. This is insufficient to meet the CAT protection
standard, see Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010), and
Petitioner’s claim fails.
DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --