NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 16 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE J. BELTRAN, AKA Javier Beltran Nos. 16-70437 Aleman, AKA Jose Javier Beltran Aleman, 16-72019 AKA Javier Beltran Morales, AKA Jose Beltran Morales, AKA Jose Javier Aleman, Agency No. A095-137-464 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petitions for Review of Orders of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 9, 2020** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. In these consolidated petitions, Jose J. Beltran, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes these case are suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) (petition No. 16-70437), and the BIA’s order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings (petition No. 16-72019). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, including determinations regarding social distinction. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo the legal question of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Id. We review for an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review in No. 16-70437, and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review in No. 16-72019. As to petition No. 16-70437, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Beltran failed to establish his proposed social groups are socially distinct. See Conde Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1243 (substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that petitioner’s proposed social group was not cognizable because of the absence of society-specific evidence of social distinction). Thus, the agency did not err in concluding that Beltran failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular 2 16-70437 social group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). In light of this conclusion, we do not reach Beltran’s contentions as to nexus. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach). We reject Beltran’s contention that the agency erred in ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals