United States v. 2020-04-17 | 19-70844 | LUIS PEREZ V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS OSVALDO PEREZ, AKA Luis
Osvaldo Perez-Diaz,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-70844

Agency No. A208-252-259

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted April 7, 2020
**

Before: TASHIMA, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Luis Osvaldo Perez, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

*
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

APR 17 2020

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

2 19-70844
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 in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
We do not address Perez’s contentions regarding his eligibility for asylum
because his petition arises from withholding only proceedings.
The agency did not err in finding that Perez did not 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))); see also Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th
Cir. 2008) (holding that young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence is too
loosely defined to meet the requirement for particularity) abrogated on other
grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013);
Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 945 (9th Cir. 2007) (“‘Tattooed gang member’
falls outside the Ninth Circuit’s definition of social group.”).

3 19-70844
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Perez
otherwise failed to establish the harm he experienced or fears was or would be on
account of a protected ground. 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”).
Thus, Perez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
To the extent that Perez raises claims based on his family membership and
political opinion, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Barron v. Ashcroft,
358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not
presented to the agency).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider Perez’s contentions regarding CAT
relief because he did not raise them to the BIA. See id.; see also Segura v. Holder,
605 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2010) (broad statements in the notice of appeal and
brief were insufficient to put the BIA on notice of petitioner’s claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.