Hidalgo Galicia-Orozco v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HIDALGO GALICIA-OROZCO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71338
Agency No. A094-941-919
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Hidalgo Galicia-Orozco, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing
his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his applications for withholding
of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
FILED
FEB 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-71338 2
Petitioner alleges that he fears persecution from gang members because of
his membership in a social group consisting of “victims of criminal street gangs.”
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that petitioner failed to establish
that he was targeted, or will be targeted, because of his membership in a social
group. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[a]n alien’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”); Ramos-Lopez v.
Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 861-62 (9th Cir. 2008) (social group must be sufficiently
particular, and not too broad and diverse). Because petitioner did not establish a
nexus to a protected ground, petitioners’ withholding of removal claim fails. See
INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-83 (1992); Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d
1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Galicia-Orozco’s CAT
claim because petitioner failed to demonstrate the government would acquiesce in
the gang’s criminal actions, or that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured
if he returns to Guatemala. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 748 (9th
Cir. 2008)
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --