United States v. 2020-08-25 | 17-70670 | ORLANDO VELASQUEZ GARCIA V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ORLANDO VELASQUEZ GARCIA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70670
Agency No. A073-986-839
MEMORANDUM
*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 5, 2020
**
Pasadena, California
Before: CALLAHAN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and BENCIVENGO,
***
District
Judge.

Orlando Velasquez Garcia, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) order affirming the
FILED
AUG 25 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
*
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).
* * *
The Honorable Cathy Ann Bencivengo, United States District Judge
for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

immigration judge’s denial of asylum, cancellation of removal, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).
In a concurrently filed opinion, we hold that perjury under section 118(a) of
the California Penal Code is an “offense relating to . . . perjury” and is thus an
“aggravated felony.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S). Velasquez was convicted under
section 118(a), and therefore the BIA did not err in holding that he was ineligible
for asylum, see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), (B)(i), and cancellation of removal,
see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal
because the record does not compel the conclusion that the proposed social group
of adult males returning to Guatemala who are perceived as wealthy is “socially
distinct,” see Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016), nor
does it compel the conclusion that gang members will target Velasquez based on
the mistaken belief that he is returning to Guatemala to take revenge for threats and
extortion of his mother, see Hakeem v. I.N.S., 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection.
The record does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that
Velasquez will be tortured in Guatemala. His general concern about crime and
2

violence in Guatemala is insufficient for protection under CAT, see Delgado-Ortiz
v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010), and his mother and siblings
continue to live safely in Guatemala, making his predictions of torture speculative,
see Blandino-Medina v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1338, 1348 (9th Cir. 2013).
PETITION DENIED.
3