United States v. 2020-01-13 | 19-70937 | JOSE ORTIZ-SALGUERO V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ANTONIO ORTIZ-SALGUERO,
AKA Jorge Alberto Ortiz-Contreras,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-70937

Agency No. A087-433-112

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 8, 2020
**

Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jose Antonio Ortiz-Salguero, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions 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 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

JAN 13 2020

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

2 19-70937
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. Garcia-Milian v. Holder,
755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in finding Ortiz-Salguero 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))); see also Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849,
854-55 (9th Cir. 2009) (young Guatemalan men who resist gang recruitment is not
a particular social group).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ortiz-
Salguero failed to establish that the harm he suffered or fears in Guatemala was or
would be on account of his family membership or political opinion. See INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some
evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622

3 19-70937
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.”); Barrios, 581 F.3d at 856 (rejecting petitioner’s
contention that he was persecuted on account of his political opinion based on his
refusal to join a gang). Thus, Ortiz-Salguero’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Ortiz-Salguero 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); see also Delgado-Ortiz v.
Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and
crime in petitioner’s home country was insufficient to meet standard for CAT
relief).
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Ortiz-Salguero’s remaining
contentions. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts
and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they
reach).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.