NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 4 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN PABLO PLAZA-MENDOZA, AKA No. 17-71841 David Ramos-Mendoza, 18-72907 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-458-332 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 17, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: SILER,*** LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. David Ramos Mendoza seeks review of multiple decisions by the Board of * 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 Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. Immigration Appeals.1 He filed two separate petitions to challenge (1) the denial of relief from removal and the disposition of his motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) denial of his motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We review de novo the BIA’s determinations of questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact, and we review for substantial evidence the BIA’s factual findings. See Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241–42 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny both petitions. 1. Denial of relief from removal: Mendoza applied for asylum and withholding of removal based on his membership in the particular social group of “Guatemalans who have refused forced recruitment efforts by rural gangs.” For a proposed group to be cognizable, it must be defined with particularity. See Conde Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1242. Particularity requires “characteristics that provide a clear benchmark for determining who falls within the group.” Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 239 (B.I.A. 2014). In other words, a group “must also be discrete and have definable boundaries—it must not be amorphous, overbroad, diffuse, or subjective” because “not every ‘immutable characteristic’ is sufficiently precise to define a particular social group.” Id. Here, the IJ and BIA reasonably concluded that Mendoza’s proposed group 1 According to the petitioner, the name in the caption was given to him by mistake. We will therefore use the petitioner’s real name. 2 lacks particularity. The proposed group leads to unresolved questions about group membership. For example, people can disagree about what is a sufficient “refusal” and what constitutes a “forced recruitment effort.” Mendoza also does not point to evidence showing that members of Guatemalan society would agree on who is a member of this group. Indeed, we have rejected similar groups as overly broad. See, e.g., Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 855 (9th Cir. 2009), abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013) (rejecting proposed group of young males in Guatemala who are targeted for gang recruitment but who refuse because they disagree with ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals