NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 17 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LUIS EDUARDO FLORES-BUEROSTRO, No. 18-71269 AKA Luis Eduardo Flores, AKA Luis Eduardo Flores-Buenrostro, Agency No. A200-242-974 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 14, 2023** Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. Luis Eduardo Flores-Buerostro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for * 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). withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 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 questions of law, including 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 deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not err in finding that Flores-Buerostro did not establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (to demonstrate membership in a particular 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))); see also Conde Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1243 (proposed social group lacked social distinction because the record failed to establish its members are perceived or recognized as a group by the society in question). To the extent Flores-Buerostro raises a new proposed particular social group in his opening brief, we lack jurisdiction to consider it because he failed to raise the issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th 2 18-71269 Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative proceedings below). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Flores- Buerostro failed to establish that he was or will be persecuted on account of an actual or imputed political opinion. See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005) (to establish a nexus to political opinion, petitioner must show “(1) that [he] had either an affirmative or imputed political opinion, and (2) that [he was] targeted on account of that opinion”); see also Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 746-47 (9th Cir. 2008) (resistance to a gang’s recruitment efforts alone does not constitute …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals