Vallecios Enriquez v. Bondi

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 15 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AXEL OSWALDO VALLECIOS No. 23-234 ENRIQUEZ, Agency No. A216-387-454 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted October 22, 2024** San Francisco, California

Before: GILMAN,*** WARDLAW, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.*** *** Axel Oswaldo Vallecios Enriquez (“Enriquez”), a native and citizen of

Guatemala, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration 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 Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit, sitting by designation. (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252, and we deny the petition.

“Where, as here, the BIA cites Matter of Burbano and does not express

disagreement” with the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision as if it were the

BIA’s decision. Pelayo-Garcia v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1010, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009).

We review denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief under the

substantial evidence standard. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th

Cir. 2014).

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Enriquez’s

application for asylum and withholding of removal. Although Enriquez suffered

harm that rose to the level of persecution, he failed to establish that the harm he

suffered was on account of his membership in a particular social group (“PSG”).

The record is devoid of society-specific evidence compelling the conclusion that

persons who have “lived in the home of non-parent custodians, without effective

familial protection,” “witnessed gang violence,” “resisted gang coercion,” been

“identified by police as potential gang affiliates,” or have kinship to those that

“have and will be targeted for extortion and recruitment” are members of a socially

distinct group in Guatemalan society. Thus, the agency correctly found that none

2 23-234 of his proposed PSGs is cognizable. See Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238,

1243 (9th Cir. 2020); Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1092–93.

Additionally, Enriquez failed to present evidence compelling the conclusion that he

suffered past harm or feared future harm “on account of” political opinion. See

Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2009).1

2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Enriquez

failed to establish that he will more likely than not be tortured by or with the

acquiescence of a public official, upon return to Guatemala. Arteaga v. Mukasey,

511 F.3d 940, 948–49 (9th Cir. 2007). Although the agency found that Enriquez

suffered past torture at the hands of gang members in Guatemala, he failed to

establish the likelihood of future torture. Enriquez failed to establish that the gang

members that harmed him posed a nationwide threat; he does not claim that any of

his similarly situated family members remaining in Guatemala have been harmed

since relocating within Guatemala; and he otherwise submitted no evidence

compelling the conclusion that he established a clear probability that he will be

persecuted or tortured upon return to Guatemala. See Tzompantzi-Salazar v.

Garland, 32 F.4th 696, 705–07 (9th Cir. 2022) (as amended).

1 Enriquez also argues that the agency should have considered a PSG of “deportees,” but because he failed to raise this argument before the IJ, the BIA properly declined to consider it. See Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1296–97 (9th Cir. 2019).

3 23-234 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.2

2 Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Removal (Dkt. No. 3) is denied as moot.

4 23-234