NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 15 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDGAR MARIANO VILLA PRADO, AKA No. 16-73720 Edgar Mariano, AKA Edgar Mariano Prado, AKA Edgar Mariano Villa, AKA Edgar Agency No. A077-105-141 Marino Villa-Prado, Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 12, 2018** Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Edgar Mariano Villa Prado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of * 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). removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. The agency did not err in finding that Villa Prado failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding “imputed wealthy Americans” returning to Mexico did not constitute a particular social group); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding “returning Mexicans from the United States” did not constitute a particular social group). Thus, Villa Prado’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Villa Prado failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See id. at 1152 (generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico not particular to petitioners 2 16-73720 was insufficient to establish CAT eligibility). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 16-73720 16-73720 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Edgar Villa Prado v. Jefferson Sessions 15 June 2018 Agency Unpublished 2c6824aed8edcc352541c611235c8015d507def7
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals