Ricardo Ridmer Jeronimo- Matias v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO RIDMER JERONIMO-
MATIAS,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-73694
Agency No. A099-581-761
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Ridmer Jeronimo-Matias, 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 and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8
* 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 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-73694
U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, Cerezo v. 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. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th
Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in finding that Jeronimo-Matias 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))). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that Jeronimo-Matias failed to establish a well-founded fear of
persecution in Guatemala on account of his Mam ethnicity or any other 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.”); INS v.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-73694
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an applicant “must provide some
evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”). Thus, his asylum claim fails.
In this case, because Jeronimo-Matias failed to establish eligibility for
asylum, he failed to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --