From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Francisco-Francisco v. Barr

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Sep 26, 2019
No. 18-73028 (9th Cir. Sep. 26, 2019)

Opinion

No. 18-73028

09-26-2019

MOISIS FRANCISCO-FRANCISCO, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Agency No. A209-818-698 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Moisis Francisco-Francisco, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA's interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not err in finding that Francisco-Francisco did not establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular 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))); see also Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-55 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that young men from Guatemala who resist gang recruitment is not a particular social group). Substantial evidence supports the agency's determination that Francisco-Francisco failed to establish that any harm he experienced or fears in Guatemala was or would be on account of a protected ground. 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)). Thus, Francisco-Francisco's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Francisco-Francisco 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 Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

Francisco-Francisco's motion to appoint pro bono counsel (Docket Entry No. 20) and motion for reconsideration/clarification or modification (of unspecified actions of the agency) (Docket Entry No. 21) are denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Francisco-Francisco v. Barr

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Sep 26, 2019
No. 18-73028 (9th Cir. Sep. 26, 2019)
Case details for

Francisco-Francisco v. Barr

Case Details

Full title:MOISIS FRANCISCO-FRANCISCO, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Sep 26, 2019

Citations

No. 18-73028 (9th Cir. Sep. 26, 2019)