Pelayo Brambila v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 10, 2025
• Docket: 23-1924
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 10 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE GUADALUPE PELAYO No. 23-1924 BRAMBILA, Agency No. A205-714-920 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted February 5, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: SCHROEDER, MILLER, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Jose Guadalupe Pelayo Brambila, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the

Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

* 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). under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Petitioner sought relief on the

ground that he feared persecution on account of membership in a “particular social

group.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i), 1231(b)(3)(A). The social group he

proposed was “Mexican citizens who are long-time residents of the [United

States].”

The BIA affirmed the denial of asylum and withholding because the

proposed group lacked definitive boundaries and particularity to be recognized as a

discrete group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1135–36 (9th Cir. 2016).

Petitioner does not meaningfully contest this determination, which is supported by

the record and our case law. See Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir.

2020) (Particularity requires a group definition that “provide[s] a clear benchmark

for determining who falls within the group” and establishes “definable

boundaries.” (citation omitted)).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Petitioner has not demonstrated that he will face any particularized threat

of torture by or with the acquiescence of officials in Mexico. See Lalayan v.

Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 840 (9th Cir. 2021); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2).

PETITION DENIED.

2 23-1924