Nelson Haroldo Castaneda Escobar v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NELSON HAROLDO CASTANEDA
ESCOBAR,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73345
Agency No. A073-754-747
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 5, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: TASHIMA, W. FLETCHER, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Nelson Haroldo Castaneda-Escobar petitions for review of a decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an immigration judge’s denial of
his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
FILED
NOV 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 4 --

Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252,
and we deny the petition.1
The BIA did not err in finding that the mistreatment Castaneda-Escobar
suffered was not on account of his membership in a particular social group.
Castaneda-Escobar’s proposed social group—“truck drivers or small business
owners targeted by gangs for protection money”—has neither a “common
characteristic that is fundamental to the members’ identities” or “an innate
characteristic which is so fundamental to the identities or consciences of its
members they either cannot or should not be required to change it.” Arteaga v.
Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 944 (9th Cir. 2007). Indeed, Castaneda-Escobar admitted
that he could sell his trucks to start a different kind of business but it would not be
as profitable as operating a trucking business.
Castaneda-Escobar’s proposed social group also lacked “social visibility”
and “particularity.” There is no evidence that the gangs in Guatemala or the
members of the Mazatenango community perceive Castaneda-Escobar’s proposed
1 On appeal, Castaneda-Escobar argues for the first time that the
immigration judge abused her discretion by not allowing cross-examination and
redirect examination. Because Castaneda-Escobar failed to exhaust this issue
before the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to consider this argument. See Barron v.
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2004); Samayoa-Martinez v. Holder, 558
F.3d 897, 902 n.7 (9th Cir. 2009).
2

-- 2 of 4 --

group as a social group, and Castaneda-Escobar admitted that the gangs extorted
money not only from truck owners or operators but also people who own small
stores or warehouses. See Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1088–89
(9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (stating that “social visibility” requires “that the shared
characteristic generally be recognizable by other members of the community, or
evidence that members of the proposed group would be perceived as a group by
society” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, the proposed group is
amorphous because Guatemalan society’s idea of what the terms “small business
owners” and “truck owners/operators” mean may vary. Id. at 1091 (stating that the
“ultimate question” in the particularity requirement “is whether a group can
accurately be described in a manner sufficiently distinct that the group would be
recognized, in the society in question, as a discrete class of persons” (internal
quotation marks omitted)).
Further, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Castaneda-
Escobar failed to establish that it is “more likely than not” that he will be tortured
upon his return to Guatemala. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1
(1992) (“To reverse the BIA[’s] finding we must find that the evidence not only
supports that conclusion, but compels it . . . .”). There is no evidence that a
government official or person acting in an official capacity would torture him or
3

-- 3 of 4 --

aid or acquiesce in his torture by gang members. Castaneda-Escobar therefore is
ineligible for CAT relief.
Finally, we deny Castaneda-Escobar’s motion to remand the matter or refer
the matter to mediation.
PETITION DENIED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --