FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 24 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERTO FRANCISCO QUEZADA- No. 17-70659 GONZALEZ, AKA Cuate Quesada, AKA Victor Quesada, AKA Francisco Quezada, Agency No. A206-407-021 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 10, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: KLEINFELD, WATFORD, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Roberto Francisco Quezada-Gonzalez petitions this Court for a review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s decision affirming the immigration judge’s * 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). denials of his request for a waiver of inadmissibility for his U visa application and his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). For Quezada- Gonzalez’s U visa claim, we review the Board’s decision. See Guerra v. Barr, 974 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2020). For his remaining claims, because the Board adopted the immigration judge’s decision in its entirety, we review the immigration judge’s decision directly. See Mutuku v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1210, 1212 (9th Cir. 2010). We review legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. See Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022). The Board correctly decided that the immigration judge does not have authority to consider Quezada-Gonzalez’s request for an inadmissibility waiver for his U visa application. In Man v. Barr, we addressed the exact same question as Quezada-Gonzalez presents here: “In removal proceedings commenced against a non-citizen after the non-citizen has already entered the country, does an [immigration judge] have the authority to grant the non-citizen a U visa waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(3)(A)(ii)?” 940 F.3d 1354, 1356 (9th Cir. 2019) (per curiam). And we answered no. Id. 2 For Quezada-Gonzalez’s asylum claim, we are bound by the immigration judge’s finding that his application is time-barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B), (3). Alternatively, the judge correctly decided that Quezada-Gonzalez’s proposed social group of individuals returning from the United States does not constitute a protected ground for asylum purposes. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151–52 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam). For his argument that his family forms a particular social group, the immigration judge also had substantial evidence to conclude that he failed to establish such a claim. Under our precedent, petitioners invoking familial association as a protected ground must show that the alleged persecutors “specifically sought out the particular social group of [their] family.” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1145 (9th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although Quezada-Gonzalez states instances where his sister, brothers, and uncles separately faced robbery, threats, extortion, or harassment, the agency reasonably concluded …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals