ELADIO ALVAREZ-CRUZ, AKA Eladio Alvarez v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELADIO ALVAREZ-CRUZ, AKA Eladio
Alvarez,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70345
Agency No. A205-600-637
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Eladio Alvarez-Cruz, 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 and withholding
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
* 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
JAN 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
questions of law, including the legal question of whether a particular social group
is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s
interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Conde Quevedo v. Barr,
947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings. Id. at 1241. We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Alvarez-Cruz
failed to establish he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See
Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a
particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution
was or will be on account of his membership in such group”); 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”).
The BIA did not err in concluding that Alvarez-Cruz’s wealth-based social
group was not cognizable. See Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1077 (9th
Cir. 2020) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular social group, the
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))); see also Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1137-38 (9th

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Cir. 2016) (proposed group was not cognizable because it lacked particularity and
social distinction).
Thus, Alvarez-Cruz’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
We reject Alvarez-Cruz’s contentions that the BIA erred by not analyzing
his arguments as to relocation and the immutability of his social group, see
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (agencies are not required
to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach), and we do not consider the
merits of these issues because the BIA did not reach them, see Santiago-Rodriguez
v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied
on by the BIA).
As stated in the court’s September 22, 2020 order, the temporary stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --