Axel Geovanny Suhul Garcia v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AXEL GEOVANNY SUHUL GARCIA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70220
Agency No. A201-223-786
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 7, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Axel Geovanny Suhul Garcia, a native and citizen of Guatemala proceeding
pro se, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing Garcia’s appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying
Garcia’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
* 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 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
We have jurisdiction under 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
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.
The agency did not err in finding that Garcia failed to establish membership
in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir.
2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular 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))).
Thus, Garcia’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Garcia 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --