FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALFREDO MACEDO TEMPLOS, No. 15-73122 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A089-244-826 ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, OPINION Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted October 19, 2020 Honolulu, Hawaii Filed February 9, 2021 Before: J. Clifford Wallace, Carlos T. Bea, and Mark J. Bennett, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Wallace; Concurrence by Judge Bea 2 MACEDO TEMPLOS V. WILKINSON SUMMARY * Immigration Denying in part and granting in part Alfredo Macedo Templos’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, and remanding, the panel held that the Board correctly concluded that Macedo’s social group comprised of “Mexican wealthy business owners” was not cognizable for purposes of withholding relief, but that the Board erred in concluding that Macedo failed to establish government involvement in, or acquiescence to, his alleged torture for purposes of CAT relief. The panel held that the Board correctly concluded that Macedo’s proposed social group of “Mexican wealthy business owners” was not cognizable because it lacked social distinction, particularity, or an immutable characteristic. First, the panel explained that Macedo’s proposed group was not socially distinct, because the record lacked evidence that Mexican society perceives wealthy business owners as a distinct group, and the United States Department of State’s Country Report states that kidnapping for ransom occurs at “all socioeconomic levels.” Second, the panel explained that the proposed group lacks particularity because it could include large swaths of people and various cross-sections of a community. Finally, the panel explained that being a wealthy business owner is not * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. MACEDO TEMPLOS V. WILKINSON 3 an immutable characteristic because it is not fundamental to an individual’s identity. The panel held that even if Macedo’s proposed group were cognizable, he would still not be entitled to withholding relief, because substantial evidence supported the IJ’s decision that Macedo did not establish a nexus between the feared harm and his alleged membership in the proposed group. Addressing Macedo’s CAT claim, the panel held that the Board erred in concluding that Macedo had not proven he had been “subjected to any harm by Mexican officials.” Macedo argued that he established the Mexican government’s acquiescence to his torture because he had reasons to believe he was targeted by Mexican judicial police, an official discouraged him from filing a report, and he filed police reports and no action was taken. The panel noted that the Board’s decision preceded and therefore did not consider this court’s opinion in Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that the question of whether the public officials who perpetrated torture against the petitioner were acting in their official capacity is irrelevant, and that the implementing regulations do not establish a “rogue ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals