NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 26 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JORGE PANIAGUA-BALTAZAR, AKA No. 20-70341 Jorge Paniagua, Agency No. A087-990-426 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted February 8, 2021 San Francisco, California Before: WARDLAW and BEA, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL,** District Judge. Jorge Paniagua-Baltazar (“Paniagua”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order of removal affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Lee H. Rosenthal, Chief United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation. asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the denial of Paniagua’s application for asylum and withholding of removal. Paniagua does not claim that he suffered past persecution, and he failed to establish that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of any protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(42), 1158(b). The BIA properly concluded that none of Paniagua’s proposed social groups are cognizable. There is no evidence that male deportees returning from the United States to Mexico with significant family ties in the United States are “perceived as a group by society” in Mexico. Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1127 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Matter of M–E–V–G–, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 240 (BIA 2014)). Moreover, Paniagua’s two family-based groups, children of Jose Paniagua Vijil and immediate family members of Jose Paniagua Vijil, are not defined “in a manner sufficiently distinct that the group[s] would be recognized . . . as [] discrete class[es] of persons.” Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (citation omitted). Thus, Paniagua has not shown that his proposed family-based social groups have “social visibility” or “particularity.” Id. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Paniagua failed to establish that his fear of future harm is well-founded. Paniagua testified that his 2 stepmother, mother, paternal grandmother, two of his four siblings, and several aunts and uncles remain in the region unharmed. Paniagua has not distinguished himself from these similarly situated family members. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“An applicant’s claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when similarly-situated family members continue to live in the country without incident . . . .” (citations omitted)). Moreover, as the BIA found, Paniagua has failed adequately to explain why he could not relocate within Mexico. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[A]n applicant ‘does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the applicant ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals