Edvin Joel Argueta Gonzalez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDVIN JOEL ARGUETA GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-71637
Agency No. A200-707-523
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2022**
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Edvin Joel Argueta Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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”),
* 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
FEB 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-71637
and denying his request for voluntary departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo 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 in part and dismiss in part the
petition for review.
Argueta Gonzalez does not challenge the agency’s dispositive determination
that his asylum application was time-barred and that he did not establish changed
or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing. 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). Thus, we deny the petition for
review as to Argueta Gonzalez’s asylum claim.
The agency did not err in concluding that Argueta Gonzalez failed to
establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch,
842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a
particular social 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-71637
supports the agency’s determination that Argueta Gonzalez otherwise failed to
establish he was or would be persecuted on account of 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, Argueta Gonzalez’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Argueta Gonzalez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject Argueta Gonzalez’s challenge to the BIA’s use of streamlining
procedures, because the BIA’s final order was not a streamlined decision.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of voluntary
departure, and Argueta Gonzalez does not raise a legal or constitutional claim over
which we retain jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), 1229c(f); Corro-
Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 (9th Cir. 2013) (the court lacks
jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of voluntary departure).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --