Gomez Aguilar v. Bondi

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN GOMEZ AGUILAR, No. 24-2957 Agency No. Petitioner, A074-108-623 v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted May 20, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER, WARDLAW, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Juan Guadalupe Gomez Aguilar (“Gomez”), a native and citizen of Mexico,

petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)

dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications

for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

* 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). Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the

petition.

The BIA affirmed and adopted the IJ’s conclusion that Gomez’s proffered

particular social groups (“PSGs”) were not legally cognizable, citing Matter of

Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994). We therefore review the IJ’s decision

on the issue of whether Gomez’s proposed PSGs were cognizable. Pelayo-Garcia

v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1010, 1012 (9th Cir. 2009).

We review questions of law, such as whether a proposed PSG is cognizable

for purposes of asylum and withholding of removal, de novo. Macedo Templos v.

Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 877, 879 (9th Cir. 2021); see Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053,

1059 (9th Cir. 2019). We review findings of fact, including those underlying a

PSG determination, for substantial evidence, upholding such “findings if they are

supported by ‘reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record

considered as a whole.’” Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1039–40 (9th Cir.

2005) (en banc) (citations omitted). Under that standard, “factual findings are

conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to

the contrary.” Manzano v. Garland, 104 F.4th 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 2024) (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted).

The agency did not err in determining that Gomez’s proposed PSGs—

“recent deportees in Mexico” and “U.S. deportees in Mexico”—lack cognizability.

2 24-2957 For both asylum and withholding of removal, Petitioner must establish that a PSG

is: “(1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2)

defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in

question.” Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the proposed

social groups are neither sufficiently particular nor socially distinct. Gomez failed

to demonstrate that the groups were sufficiently particular. The IJ explained that

Gomez’s first proposed PSG—recent deportees in Mexico—was insufficiently

particular because Gomez “did not establish any clear benchmarks for determining

what would constitute a ‘recent’ deportee.” The IJ concluded that Gomez’s second

proposed PSG—U.S. deportees in Mexico—was also insufficiently particular

because the term is ambiguous and includes an amorphous group of individuals.

“[A] proposed class of deportees [is] too amorphous, overbroad and diffuse

because it include[s] men, women, and children of all ages, regardless of the length

of time they were in the United States, the reasons for their removal, or the recency

of their removal.” Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1139 (9th Cir. 2016); see also

Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151–52 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam)

(holding that “returning Mexicans from the United States” “is too broad to qualify

as a cognizable social group”); Barbosa, 926 F.3d at 1059–60 (holding that

3 24-2957 “individuals returning to Mexico from the United States who are believed to be

wealthy” “is too broad to qualify as a cognizable particular social group”

(alterations adopted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Nor did Gomez demonstrate that Mexican society views the groups as

socially distinct. The record shows only that deported individuals may be targets

for theft and violence, which is insufficient to compel a finding that U.S. deportees

or recent deportees are viewed as distinct in Mexican society. See Ramirez-Munoz

v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228–29 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Villegas Sanchez v.

Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1180–81 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining that social

distinction requires evidence that the proposed social group is “set apart” in society

in some “significant way” (citations omitted)).

The BIA found that Gomez waived his CAT claim before it, and Gomez

fails to challenge the waiver determination in his petition for review. Therefore, he

has forfeited any challenge to the denial of his CAT claim. See Martinez-Serrano

v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.1

1 Petitioner’s Motion to Stay Removal (Dkt. No. 4) is denied as moot. The temporary stay will dissolve when the mandate issues.

4 24-2957