NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 5 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CESAR RAMIREZ-RAMIREZ, AKA Cesar No. 16-73138 Uvaldo Ramirez-Ramirez, AKA Uvaldo 17-72965 Cesar Ramirez, Agency No. A079-043-501 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 20, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: MILLER and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,*** District Judge. Uvaldo Cesar Ramirez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for * 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 Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. review of two decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”): (1) a 2016 decision affirming an IJ’s denial of Ramirez’s applications for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and (2) a 2017 decision denying Ramirez’s motion to reopen the 2016 decision as to Ramirez’s application for cancellation of removal. We deny both of Ramirez’s petitions. 1. To be eligible for asylum, Ramirez had to demonstrate that he filed his application within one year of his arrival in the United States. The Board found he had not, and that “changed or extraordinary circumstances” did not excuse his delay. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). Ramirez has not argued before us that this late filing should be excused. Thus, we uphold the Board’s decision to deny Ramirez’s asylum application as untimely. 2. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of Ramirez’s claim for withholding of removal. To secure withholding of removal, Ramirez had to show that his “life or freedom would be threatened” in El Salvador because of his “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A). Before the agency, Ramirez argued he would be persecuted in El Salvador because of his membership in either the social group of young men in El Salvador who are targeted by gang recruitment efforts or the social group of persons perceived as wealthy and who are returning from the 2 United States. The agency’s conclusion that Ramirez had not demonstrated that these groups were socially distinct within El Salvador is supported by substantial evidence. The Board thus did not err in rejecting both of these proposed social groups. Ramirez requests a remand for further clarification of his proposed social group, but he has not proposed any social groups other than the ones that the agency validly rejected. And so, remand would be futile. See Lona v. Barr, 958 F.3d 1225, 1231 n.7 (9th Cir. 2020). 3. Ramirez’s challenge to the Board’s denial of his CAT claim also fails. “To be eligible for relief under CAT, an applicant bears the burden …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals