MARVIN LOPEZ-VASQUEZ V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 15-73219 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 26 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARVIN EFRAIN LOPEZ-VASQUEZ, AKA Marvin Efrain Lopez, No. 15-73219 Agency No. A205-024-634 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 7, 2019** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Marvin Efrain Lopez-Vasquez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing Lopez’s appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Lopez’s * 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). application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision and also provides its own review of the evidence and the law, we review both the IJ and the BIA’s decisions. See Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2011). 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, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review. The agency did not err in finding that Lopez has not established membership in a cognizable social group. Lopez has not established that Guatemalans who resist gang recruitment would be perceived by society or criminal gangs as a particular social group. See Santos-Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-55 (9th Cir. 2009) (men in Guatemala resisting gang violence is not a particular social group), abrogated in part by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013). Lopez also has not established that Guatemalans who have resided in the United States would be perceived by society or criminal gangs as a particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th 2 Cir. 2016) (explaining cognizability standard) (citing Matter of M-E-G-V-, 26 I & N Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014)). Lopez 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, Lopez’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Lopez 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); see also Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief). Lopez’s record evidence that police in Guatemala lack logistical supplies, training, and personnel does not amount to government acquiescence to torture. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.