Juan Zamora-Sanchez v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 25, 2023
• Docket: 21-70260
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN SEBASTIAN ZAMORA-SANCHEZ, No. 21-70260

Petitioner, Agency No. A215-544-103

v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Juan Sebastian Zamora-Sanchez, 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

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”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947

F.3d 1238, 1241 (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. at

1241-42. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not err in concluding Zamora-Sanchez failed to 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 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))); see also Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099,

1103 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The particularity element requires characteristics that

provide a clear benchmark for determining who falls within the group,” and “[t]he

group must also be discrete and have definable boundaries—it must not be

amorphous, overbroad, diffuse, or subjective.” (internal quotation marks and

citations omitted)). To the extent Zamora-Sanchez raises new proposed particular

social groups in his opening brief, we lack jurisdiction to consider them because he

failed to raise the issues before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,

2 21-70260 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative

proceedings below). Thus, Zamora-Sanchez’s asylum and withholding of removal

claims fail.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Zamora-Sanchez 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 Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no

likelihood of torture).

Zamora-Sanchez’s opposed request (Docket Entry No. 26) for administrative

closure is denied.

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

3 21-70260