United States v. 2020-07-10 | 14-73085 | STANLEY CHAN LOPEZ V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STANLEY DIDDIER CHAN LOPEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-73085

Agency No. A200-953-442

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted July 6, 2020
**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Stanley Diddier Chan Lopez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

*
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

JUL 10 2020

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

2 14-73085
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the
petition.
The BIA did not err in concluding that Chan Lopez failed to establish
membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125,
1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (to demonstrate social group membership, “[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))); see also Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 744–46 (9th
Cir. 2008) (holding that young men who resist gang violence in El Salvador do not
constitute a particular social group), abrogated in part by Henriquez-Rivas v.
Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013). Thus, Chan Lopez’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Chan Lopez failed to show he will more likely than not be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION DENIED.