Jaime Eliseo Rodriguez Recinos v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAIME ELISEO RODRIGUEZ RECINOS,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70292
Agency No. A209-866-738
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jaime Eliseo Rodriguez Recinos, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
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
* 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 15 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-70292
Against Torture (“CAT”). 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.
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for
review.
The agency did not err in determining that Rodriguez Recinos failed to
establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d
1125, 1137-38 (9th Cir. 2016) (affirming the BIA’s determination that a proposed
social group lacked particularity where there was no “record evidence
demonstrating that Salvadoran society recognizes the boundaries” of the group)
(citing Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208, 221 (BIA 2014) (“The boundaries
of a group are not sufficiently definable unless the members of society generally
agree on who is included in the group . . .”)). Substantial evidence also supports
the agency’s determination that Rodriguez Recinos failed to establish that the harm
he experienced and fears in El Salvador was or will be on account of a protected
ground. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1015 (9th Cir. 2010) (desire to be free of

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-70292
“random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus,
Rodriguez Recinos’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Rodriguez Recinos failed to establish it is more likely than not that he
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of El
Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --