Armando Luna-Correa v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMANDO LUNA-CORREA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 19-70892
Agency No. A095-776-708
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2019**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Armando Luna-Correa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
* 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
NOV 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-70892
findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Luna-Correa
failed to establish that he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected
ground, including a particular social group. 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” (emphasis in original)); 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, Luna-Correa’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Luna-Correa 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 Mexico. See Zheng v.
Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too
speculative); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010)
(generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is insufficient to meet

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-70892
standard for CAT relief).
Luna-Correa’s opposed motion for a stay of removal is denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --