NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 20 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARLOS LOPEZ-VASQUEZ, AKA Juan No. 20-71315 Carlos Lopez Vasquez, Agency No. A205-710-260 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 14, 2021** Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Carlos Lopez-Vasquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * 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). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo the legal question of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Id. at 1241-42. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lopez- Vasquez failed to establish that the harm he experienced or fears was or would be on account of an actual or imputed political opinion. See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To establish a nexus to the political opinion ground, the [petitioner] must show (1) that [petitioner] had either an affirmative or imputed political opinion, and (2) that [petitioner was] targeted on account of that opinion.”). The agency did not err in concluding that Lopez-Vasquez did not establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular social 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 1 20-71315 Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also Delgado- Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding the proposed social group “returning Mexicans from the United States” lacked particularity). Lopez-Vasquez’s contention that the agency erred and violated his right to due process by failing to consider a claim based on religion fails where the record does not show Lopez-Vasquez raised or argued a religion claim in his pre-hearing brief or during the merits hearing before the IJ. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals