NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 13 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN GRANADOS ESPINOZA, No. 18-70385 Petitioner, Agency No. A089-866-633 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 5, 2020** Seattle, Washington Before: M. SMITH and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM,*** District Judge. Petitioner Juan Granados Espinoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration’s (BIA) decision approving and adopting the * 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 John R. Tunheim, United States Chief District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation. immigration judge’s (IJ) decision to deny Petitioner’s requests for withholding of removal and protection pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 1. We review the denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief for substantial evidence. Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016). We must deny the petition unless “the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it[.]” Id. (citation omitted) (emphasis in original). “Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision while adding its own reasons, this court reviews both decisions.” Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011). 2. Substantial evidence supports the denial of withholding of removal because Petitioner did not establish that his proposed particular social group of “Mexican, male, criminal deportees returning to Mexico after absences of longer than five years” was cognizable. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016). In particular, Petitioner’s evidence did not show that Mexican society views the group as socially distinct.1 See id. at 1136. Thus, Petitioner cannot qualify for withholding of removal. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s further conclusion that Petitioner failed to establish that the harm he fears was or would be on account of his membership in 1 Because Petitioner failed to establish social distinction, Petitioner’s assertion that the BIA engaged in improper factfinding on lack of particularity is inapposite. 2 the proposed group. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (an applicant must show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group” (emphasis added)). Petitioner’s generalized fear of being a victim of crime is insufficient. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). 3. Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief because Petitioner failed to show that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); Zheng ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals