NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 8 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WALTER ALEXANDER VILLALOBOS- No. 20-70000 MARTINEZ, Agency No. A088-893-095 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 1, 2022** Before: FRIEDLAND, SANCHEZ, and H. THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Walter Alexander Villalobos-Martinez, 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 this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). application for asylum, 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 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 deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. To the extent Villalobos-Martinez contends that the IJ erred by pretermitting his asylum application as untimely or denying his application for CAT protection, we lack jurisdiction to consider those issues because they were not exhausted in the agency. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the threats Villalobos-Martinez received did not rise to the level of persecution. See Duran- Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (“We have been most likely to find persecution where threats are repeated, specific and combined with confrontation or other mistreatment.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Villalobos- Martinez failed to establish that his proposed social group of “young men recruited 2 20-70000 by organized crime who decline to join and as a result are threatened ” is socially distinct within El Salvador. 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 BIA did not err in concluding that Villalobos- Martinez did not establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular 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))).1 The temporary stay …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals