Daniel Aparicio-Camero v. William Barr

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 11, 2020
• Docket: 16-70347
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 11 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL ANDRES APARICIO-CAMERO, Nos. 16-70347 19-71249 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-491-426 v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 3, 2020**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated petitions for review, Daniel Andres Aparicio-Camero,

a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s

decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) (petition No. 16-70347), and 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). BIA’s order denying his motion to reconsider and terminate proceedings (petition

No. 19-71249). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo

questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except

to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing

statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004).

We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v.

Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review for abuse of

discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d

785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petitions for review.

As to petition No. 16-70347, the agency did not err in finding that Aparicio-

Camero’s proposed social group based on his status as an Americanized returnee

was not cognizable. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in

order 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 Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th

Cir. 2016) (concluding that “imputed wealthy Americans” returning to Mexico

does not constitute a particular social group).

2 16-70347 In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that

Aparicio-Camero failed to establish the harm he experienced or fears was or would

be on account of his family membership or any other protected ground. See Zetino

v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free

from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang

members bears no nexus to a protected ground”); see also Ayala v. Holder, 640

F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is

established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on

account of his membership in such group”).

Thus, Aparicio-Camero’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Aparicio-Camero failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Delgado-Ortiz v.

Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and

crime in petitioner’s home country was insufficient to meet standard for CAT

relief).

As to petition No. 19-71249, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying

Aparicio-Camero’s motion to reconsider and terminate proceedings. See

Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (notice to appear

3 16-70347 need not include time and date of hearing to vest jurisdiction in the immigration

court); Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) (the BIA abuses

its discretion if it acts arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law).

We deny Aparicio-Camero’s request for a remand.

PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

4 16-70347