Full text
Carlos Reanos-Morel v. William Barr
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 18 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS ALFREDO REANOS-MOREL, No. 14-73791
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-770-846
v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 17, 2019** Seattle, Washington
Before: KLEINFELD and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and PAULEY,*** District Judge.
Carlos Alfredo Reanos-Morel, a citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his applications
* 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). *** The Honorable William H. Pauley III, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
Reanos-Morel has not presented a substantial argument that his fear of returning to his home country bears a “nexus” to the protected ground of persecution by reason of membership in a “particular social group.” We assume for purposes of this decision only that the “particular social group” of informants in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1092 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), applies to Reanos-Morel’s proposed social group. Even assuming that Reanos-Morel’s proposed social group is cognizable under Henriquez-Rivas, Reanos-Morel must establish that any persecution was or will be “on account of” his membership in such a group. Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2011). Reanos-Morel, however, did not challenge the BIA’s conclusion that “gang members threatened [him] for no other reason than to seek personal revenge for reporting their crime.” Since Reanos-Morel’s brief does not present an argument that the threats were on account of membership in the claimed particular social group, the issue is waived, and the claims for asylum and withholding of removal fail. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that generalized fears of *3 criminal violence are not cognizable grounds for asylum or withholding of removal).
Although Reanos-Morel did preserve his Convention Against Torture claim, substantial evidence on the record as a whole supports the BIA’s conclusion that Reanos-Morel has “not shown that he is more likely than not to be tortured in his country, by or with the acquiescence (including willful blindness) of a government official upon return” and thus supports the denial of Convention relief. Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).