Cristobal Argueta-Bartolon v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRISTOBAL ARGUETA-BARTOLON,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71948
Agency No. A202-065-685
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 7, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges
Cristobal Argueta-Bartolon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a)
that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Mexico and thus
is not eligible for relief from his reinstated removal order. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’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
AUG 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
findings. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that petitioner is not
eligible for withholding of removal because he 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 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))). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that
Argueta-Bartolon otherwise failed to establish he would be persecuted because of a
protected ground. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)
(petitioner’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or
random violence . . . bears no nexus to a protected ground”).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Argueta-Bartolon
is not eligible for CAT protection because he failed to demonstrate a reasonable
possibility of torture by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of
Mexico. See Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836–37.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --