Case Information

*1 Before: WARDLAW and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN, ^[***] District Judge.

An imm igration judge (“IJ”) denied Javier Santana Ruiz’s applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). *2 The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed Santana ’s appeal. We have jurisdiction of Santana ’s petition for review under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Santana failed to establish that he had suffered past persecution in Mexico because of a protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). The evidence instead supported the conclusion that Santana was the victim of “ harassment by criminals motivated by theft,” which “bears no nexus to a protected ground.” Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). The BIA also correctly concluded that Santana’s proposed social group of those persecuted by police is impermissibly circular. See Matter of S-E-G- , 24 I. & N. Dec. 579, 584 (BIA 2008) (holding that a social group could not “be defined exclusively by the fact that its members have been subjected to harm in the past”); Matter of A-M-E- & J-G-U- , 24 I. & N. Dec. 69, 74 (BIA 2007) (same); see also Reyes v. Lynch 36 (9th Cir. 2016) (stating that a social group cannot be “amorphous,” and must “generally be recognizable by other members of the community ” (quoting Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder , 707 F.3d 1081, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2013)).

2. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Santana did not establish a reasonable likelihood of torture if returned to Mexico. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Santana offered no reason to believe that his assailants whom he *3 described as motivated by pecuniary gain would seek him out, years later, now that he no longer operates a business. Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding that Santana could relocate to live with his family in Oaxaca, a considerable distance from where he was attacked. See Maldonado v. Lynch 64 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc).

PETITION DENIED

[*] 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. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

[***] The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.