Hector Manuel Morales Gonsalez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HECTOR MANUEL MORALES
GONSALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-73464
Agency No. A205-024-678
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Hector Manuel Morales Gonsalez,1 a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
* 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).
1 Although petitioner’s surname appears as “Morales Gonsalez” in the
agency decisions, Notice to Appear, and Answering Brief, the Form I-589
application, Petition for Review, and Opening Brief show his surname as “Morales
Gonzalez.”
FILED
MAY 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238,
1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Morales
Gonsalez failed to establish that the harm he experienced or fears was or would be
on account of his membership in the particular social group of “family members of
Salvador Morales.” See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 483 (1992) (an
applicant “must provide some evidence of [motive], direct or circumstantial”);
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”). We reject as
unsupported by the record Morales Gonsalez’s contentions that the agency failed to
consider evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of his claim. Thus, Morales
Gonsalez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --