NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 21 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JACINTO VELA-FLORES, No. 20-71926

Petitioner, Agency No. A200-150-228

v.

MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 12, 2021**

Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

Jacinto Vela-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 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 de novo the legal question

* 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). of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that

deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and

regulations. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Id. at 1241. We

deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not err in concluding that Vela-Flores failed to establish

membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d

1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular

social 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))). We reject as

unsupported by the record Vela-Flores’ contentions that the agency erred in the

particular social group analysis.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Vela-Flores

otherwise failed to establish that 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”).

Thus, Vela-Flores’ withholding of removal claim fails.

2 20-71926 Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Vela-Flores 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 Mexico. See

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject as unsupported by

the record Vela-Flores’ contentions that the agency failed to consider evidence or

otherwise erred in its analysis of his CAT claim.

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.

3 20-71926