JUAN CHILEL-CHILEL, AKA Juan Chelal, AKA Juan Chelal Chelal, AKA Juan Chilel, AKA J.… v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN CHILEL-CHILEL, AKA Juan
Chelal, AKA Juan Chelal Chelal, AKA Juan
Chilel, AKA J. Chilel Gonsales, AKA J.
Chilel Gonsalez, AKA Tomas Chilel
Gonzales, AKA Chilel Lopez,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-71598
Agency No. A079-007-948
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 7, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Juan Chilel-Chilel (“Chilel-Chilel”), a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing Chilel-Chilel’s appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
* 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
AUG 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-71598
denying Chilel-Chilel’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and cancellation of removal. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition.
Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s reasoning, we review both the IJ’s
and BIA’s decisions. Alanniz v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2019). We
review de novo questions of law, 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.
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006).
Chilel-Chilel waived his asylum claim before this court. See Martinez-
Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically
raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
The BIA did not err in finding that Chilel-Chilel did not 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-71598
conclusion that Chilel-Chilel otherwise failed to establish he 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”). Our conclusion is not affected by the differing nexus
standards applicable to asylum and withholding of removal claims. Cf. Barajas-
Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017) (discussing Zetino v. Holder
having drawn no distinction between the standards where there was no nexus at all
to a protected ground). Thus, Chilel-Chilel’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Chilel-Chilel 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 agency correctly concluded that Chilel-Chilel is statutorily ineligible for
cancellation of removal pursuant to INA § 240A(b)(1)(C), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1)(C), because he was convicted under the California Penal Code
§ 273.5(a), which “is categorically a crime of domestic violence within the
meaning of § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).” Carrillo v. Holder, 781 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir.
2015).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --