NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DENIS E. PINEDA, AKA Denis Edgardo No. 15-72299 Pineda Valencia, Agency No. A073-979-451 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 8, 2020** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Denis E. Pineda, 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 applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have * 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). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Pineda failed to establish a nexus between the harm he experienced or fears in El Salvador and a protected ground, including his family 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”); see also 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, Pineda’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Pineda failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture). 2 15-72299 Pineda’s contention that the BIA violated his due process rights fails. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). As stated in the Court’s October 19, 2015 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 15-72299 15-72299 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Denis Pineda v. William Barr 10 September 2020 Agency Unpublished 89e9c8f554fe3e8caef42713f95b12f732378430
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals