NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 14 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS ALBERTO FIGUEROA No. 18-71704 RODRIGUEZ, Agency No. A 045-123-742 Petitioner, v. WILLIAM BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 4, 2020** Portland, Oregon Before: FERNANDEZ and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and BURGESS,*** 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 Timothy M. Burgess, United States Chief District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation. Luis Alberto Figueroa Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We deny the petition for review. “We review denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence.” Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotations omitted). “In order to reverse the BIA, we must determine ‘that the evidence not only supports [a contrary] conclusion, but compels it—and also compels the further conclusion’ that the petitioner meets the requisite standard for obtaining relief.” Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting I.N.S. v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n. l (1992)) (emphasis in original). Where the BIA has reviewed and incorporated portions of the IJ’s decision as its own, “we treat the incorporated parts of the IJ’s decision as the BIA’s.” Molina-Estrada v. I.N.S., 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2002). Figueroa seeks asylum because he fears persecution on account of his imputed membership in the proposed particular social group, “Mexicans assumed to be involved in the theft of Pemex fuel by corrupt Mexican officials and cartels.” Figueroa left Mexico in March 2016, approximately four months after he was 2 18-71704 shot in the leg while standing outside his employer’s auto shop. The isolated incident occurred when unknown gunmen attacked a group of individuals in a restaurant next door to the auto shop and resulted in the murder of five people. The BIA determined that the shooting was related to revenge between two rival criminal groups and not because of Figueroa’s imputed membership in a particular social group. The BIA did not err in finding that Figueroa failed to establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (observing that, 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 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals