United States v. 2020-05-11 | 17-72870 | TULIO TELLO-LOPES V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TULIO TELLO-LOPES,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 17-72870

Agency No. A205-063-026

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted May 6, 2020
**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Tulio Tello-Lopes, 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”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v.

*
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

MAY 11 2020

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

2 17-72870
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 that Tello-Lopes 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 social
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 Ramirez-Munoz v. Holder, 816
F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding “imputed wealthy Americans”
returning to Mexico did not constitute a particular social group); Delgado-Ortiz v.
Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding “returning Mexicans
from the United States” did not constitute a particular social group).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Tello-Lopes
otherwise failed to demonstrate that the harm he fears in Guatemala 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

3 17-72870
theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”).
Thus, Tello-Lopes’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Tello-Lopes failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of
torture).
We do not consider Tello-Lopes’ due process contention. See Martinez-
Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that
are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.