JOAQUIN ELIAS-QUIEJ, AKA Joaquin Quiej-Ramos v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOAQUIN ELIAS-QUIEJ, AKA Joaquin
Quiej-Ramos,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-73216
Agency No. A202-070-173
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 2, 2022**
SILVERMAN, KOH, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Joaquin Elias-Quiej, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,
* 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
JUN 10 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 19-73216
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). Elias-Quiej also seeks review of the BIA’s order denying his motion to
reconsider and terminate proceedings.
We have jurisdiction under 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
review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v.
Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in concluding that Elias-Quiej did not 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))); see also Conde
Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1243 (concluding that the petitioner failed to establish that
Guatemalans who report the criminal activity of gangs to the police constitute a
cognizable particular social group); Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 861-

-- 2 of 4 --

3 19-73216
862 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that young Honduran men who resisted gang
recruitment failed the particularity requirement and lacked the requisite social
visibility), abrogated in part on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707
F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Elias-Quiej
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,
Elias-Quiej’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Elias-Quiej 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).
The BIA was within its discretion in denying Elias-Quiej’s motion to
reconsider and terminate because the motion failed to identify any error of fact or
law in the BIA decision. To the extent Elias-Quiej contends that the IJ lacked
jurisdiction over his proceedings, his argument is foreclosed by Karingithi v.
Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (rejecting contention that lack of

-- 3 of 4 --

4 19-73216
hearing information in notice to appear deprived immigration court of
jurisdiction).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --