Jose Flores v. William Barr ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    AUG 23 2019
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JOSE MANUEL FLORES,                              No.   15-73025
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A092-654-504
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    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.
    Jose Manuel Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
    the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from an
    immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying his applications for withholding of
    *
    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).
    removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have
    jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    , and we deny the petition.
    Whether a group constitutes a “particular social group” is a question of law
    that we review de novo. Perdomo v. Holder, 
    611 F.3d 662
    , 665 (9th Cir. 2010).
    We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v.
    Gonzales, 
    453 F.3d 1182
    , 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006).
    The BIA did not err in its conclusion that Flores failed to 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))); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 
    600 F.3d 1148
    ,
    1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding “returning Mexicans from the United States”
    2
    did not constitute a particular social group). Thus, Flores’s withholding of removal
    claim fails.1
    Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
    Flores failed to show that it is more likely than not that he will 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).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    1
    Our conclusion is not affected by the differing nexus standards applicable
    to asylum and withholding of removal claims. Cf. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 
    846 F.3d 351
    , 360 (9th Cir. 2017) (discussing Zetino v. Holder having drawn no
    distinction between the standards where there was no nexus at all to a protected
    ground).
    3