Victor Hugo Ajanel Cahuec v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR HUGO AJANEL CAHUEC,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-2005
Agency No.
A201-563-412
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 12, 2023**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Victor Hugo Ajanel Cahuec, 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 decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
* 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
SEP 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-2005
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238,
1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ajanel
Cahuec failed to establish he was or 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”). Thus, his asylum claim fails.
Because Ajanel Cahuec failed to establish any nexus at all, he also failed to satisfy
the standard for withholding of removal. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d
351, 359-60 (9th Cir. 2017).
We do not address Ajanel Cahuec’s contentions as to whether his harm rose
to the level of persecution and the cognizability of his proposed particular social
groups because the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. See Santiago-
Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision
of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-2005
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Ajanel Cahuec 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 temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --