Francisco Vera-Luna v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO VERA-LUNA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73880
Agency No. A200-550-458
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2019**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Vera-Luna, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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
NOV 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-73880
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.
Vera-Luna does not make any arguments challenging the agency’s
dispositive conclusion that his asylum application was untimely and that he failed
to establish any changed or extraordinary circumstances to merit an exception to
the one-year filing deadline. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-
80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening
brief are waived).
The agency did not err in finding that Vera-Luna 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))); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148,

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-73880
1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding “returning Mexicans from the United States”
was overbroad and did not constitute a particular social group).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Vera-Luna
failed to otherwise demonstrate a nexus between the harm he fears in Mexico and 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 theft or
random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus,
Vera-Luna’s withholding of removal claim fails.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Vera-Luna’s remaining
contentions regarding the merits of his asylum and withholding of removal claims.
See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies
are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Vera-Luna failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --