FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 18 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILIBERTO MONTIEL-IBARRA, No. 17-70300 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-412-450 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 15, 2022** Las Vegas, Nevada Before: RAWLINSON and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and COGAN,*** District Judge. * 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). *** The Honorable Brian M. Cogan, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. Petitioner Filiberto Montiel-Ibarra (Petitioner) is a native and citizen of Mexico. He seeks review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the denial of his requests for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we DENY the petition. 1. “We review questions of law, such as whether a proposed particular social group is cognizable for purposes of withholding of removal, de novo. . . .” Macedo Templos v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 877, 879 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). The BIA’s ultimate determination that a petitioner does not qualify for withholding of removal or CAT relief is reviewed for substantial evidence. See Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (withholding of removal); Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (CAT relief). “Substantial evidence review requires us to uphold the BIA’s determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion . . . .” Villalobos Sura v. Garland, 8 F.4th 1161, 1167 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 1 Petitioner also challenges the adverse credibility finding made by the Immigration Judge (IJ). However, “[w]here the BIA assumes that [a noncitizen] is a credible witness and thus does not rule on the credibility question, we do not review an immigration judge’s credibility determination. . . .” Barraza Rivera v. I.N.S., 913 F.2d 1443, 1450 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). 2 2. Petitioner alleges membership in two particular social groups: “victims of threats from the Zeta Narco Cartel,” and “business owners who are perceived as a wealthy family.” To be cognizable under the INA, a particular social group must be “(1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.” Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 833 (9th Cir. 2022), as amended (citation omitted). The BIA did not err in concluding that “victims of threats from the Zeta Narco Cartel” is not a cognizable particular social group. Even if the group is comprised of members sharing a common immutable characteristic, it is neither particularly defined nor socially distinct. See Macedo Templos, 987 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals