Eladio Clemente-Pacheco v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 30 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ELADIO CLEMENTE-PACHECO, No. 16-73082 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-867-999 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 13, 2018 Seattle, Washington Before: HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and TEILBORG,** District Judge. Eladio Clemente-Pacheco (“Clemente”), a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum and withholding * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable James A. Teilborg, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. of removal and his request for Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition for review. Initially, we reject Clemente’s first asylum and withholding of removal claim, because we find unavailing his argument that he suffered past persecution due to the Mexican government’s alleged unwillingness or inability to control his abusive father. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that the police were willing and able to control the father, because they always responded when called and detained the father in a mental health institution. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005). Furthermore, Clemente’s claim of a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of membership in his claimed particular social group (“PSG”)— indigent Mexicans without familial support and with chronic and perceptible mental illness involving psychosis and with mental disabilities—fails for three reasons. First, Clemente’s claimed PSG is not socially distinct. The record does not show that Mexican “society in general perceives, considers, or recognizes persons sharing the[se] particular characteristic[s] to be a group.” See Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208, 217 (BIA 2014), vacated in part on other grounds sub nom. Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016). 2 16-73082 Second, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Clemente is not a member of his claimed PSG because he has familial support such that he will not be institutionalized. Clemente contends that he will be institutionalized due to an inability to afford medication that controls his mental illness. Clemente, however, failed to establish this inability, because he did not introduce evidence regarding the price of his medication, Clemente’s brother testified that he would provide some financial support, and Clemente can work and earn money while medicated. Third, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Clemente will not be harmed on account of his membership in his claimed PSG if returned to Mexico. For asylum claims, membership in a PSG must be “one central reason” for a persecutor to harm an applicant. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i).1 Here, Clemente complains of squalid institutional conditions that cause harm to all institutionalized ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals