NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 18 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JESUS MANUEL RENDON-RENDON No. 21-70971 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-084-477 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 8, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: FRIEDLAND and KOH, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,*** District Judge. Jesus Manuel Rendon-Rendon (“Rendon”), a native and citizen of Mexico, appeals from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an * 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. 1 Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Having reviewed the relevant legal and constitutional questions de novo and the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, see Bringas- Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc), we deny Rendon’s petition. 1. The BIA ruled that Rendon filed his asylum application past the applicable one-year deadline and rejected Rendon’s argument that he qualified for an exception to that deadline based on changed country conditions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2). In his petition, Rendon merely repeats the conclusory argument he made before the IJ and BIA, that his evidence “establish[es] . . . that the country has devolved in the years since he departed.” Rendon makes this claim without citation to the record and also fails to engage with the BIA’s reasons for rejecting his changed country conditions argument. Rendon has thus forfeited any challenge that decision. See United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148, 1166 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Arguments made in passing and not supported by citations to the record or to case authority are generally deemed waived.”). 2. The BIA held that Rendon’s claimed membership in a social group comprised of “Mexican nationals who were raised in the United States and later returned to their home country after many years of absence therefrom” could not 2 provide a basis for withholding of removal. Our precedents echo the BIA’s conclusion that such a group cannot be defined with the required particularity, see Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (“returning Mexicans from the United States” too broad to qualify as a cognizable social group),1 and, regardless, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Rendon failed to establish, as he must, that such a group is socially distinct, see Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016). 3. The BIA rejected Rendon’s argument that he was eligible for withholding based on his membership in a social group comprised of family members of Hector Nava, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals