United States v. 2020-03-09 | 16-72384 | RAMIRO PEREZ-POP V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAMIRO PEREZ-POP,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 16-72384

Agency No. A205-491-434

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted March 3, 2020
**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Ramiro Perez-Pop, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual

*
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

MAR 9 2020

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

2
findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny
the petition for review.
In his opening brief, Perez-Pop does not challenge the agency’s
determination that his proposed social group related to his status as a returnee was
not cognizable. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir.
2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are
waived).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Perez-Pop
failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground.
See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide
some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”); 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-Pop’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Perez-Pop 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.