United States v. 2020-12-09 | 15-71786 | WILLIAM URQUILLA-PINO V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM ALFREDO URQUILLA-PINO,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 15-71786

Agency No. A205-847-670

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 2, 2020
**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

William Alfredo Urquilla-Pino, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 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”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for

*
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

DEC 9 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 15-71786
substantial evidence. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir.
2019). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the finding that Urquilla-Pino failed to
establish he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground, where the
evidence in the record does not show that membership in his proposed social
groups motivated or would motivate the gang activity Urquilla-Pino fears. See
Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A petitioner] must
establish that any persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such
group.”) In addition, 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.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010).
Thus, Urquilla-Pino’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief, where
Urquilla-Pino 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 El Salvador. See
Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (“generalized
evidence of violence and crime” insufficient for CAT relief). Urquilla-Pino’s
contention that the BIA failed to give his claim thorough consideration is
unsupported. See Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771-72 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.