Carlos Monreal Salazar v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS MONREAL SALAZAR,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72247
Agency No. A205-118-286
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.
Carlos Monreal Salazar, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo,
* 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 14-72247
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 Monreal Salazar 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))); see also Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d
1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding that “imputed wealthy Americans”
returning to Mexico does not constitute a particular social group); Delgado-Ortiz v.
Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that “returning
Mexicans from the United States” did not constitute a particular social group).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Monreal Salazar
otherwise failed to establish that his fear of future harm in Mexico would be on

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-72247
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, Monreal Salazar’s withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --