NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 18a0439n.06

No. 18-3032

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

SABINO DEALMONTE-CASTILLO,

Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, U.S. Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW 

FROM THE UNITED STATES 

BOARD OF IMMIGRATION 

APPEALS 

BEFORE: SILER, MOORE, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Sabino Dealmonte-Castillo, a citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying his claim for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. DealmonteCastillo primarily contends that the Board erred in affirming a finding by the Immigration Judge 

that his testimony to that judge was not credible. Even if were we to agree with Dealmonte-Castillo

in this respect, however, his petition faces a more fundamental deficiency. The relief that he seeks 

requires him to prove both membership in a distinct social group and a fear of persecution because 

of his membership in that social group. But we have repeatedly determined that DealmonteCastillo’s claimed social group—Mexicans who have spent time in the United States—does not 

so qualify as a distinct social group for purposes of a claim under the Immigration and Nationality 

Act, and substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that Dealmonte-Castillo was not 
No. 18-3032, Dealmonte-Castillo v. Sessions

-2-

persecuted based on this status. Because Dealmonte-Castillo’s claims necessarily fail along with 

his inability to make this required showing, our analysis ends at this first step.

Dealmonte-Castillo is a citizen of Mexico who first illegally entered the United States in 

2003. He was discovered while in the United States because he had claimed the identity of another 

person in the United States, been caught using that fake identity, and been convicted of possessing 

a fake passport and a fake social security card. Dealmonte-Castillo agreed to voluntary removal 

to Mexico in 2012. Dealmonte-Castillo then re-entered the United States in 2013, was 

apprehended, and the removal proceeding at issue here commenced.

During proceedings before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”), Dealmonte-Castillo testified that, 

during his 2013 return to Matamoros, Mexico, he had been approached by members of the Golf 

Cartel, who requested that he work for them, an invitation that he declined. Dealmonte-Castillo 

claimed that the gang members approached him because “he could manage dollars, had lived in 

the United States,” and, the cartel thought that “he could mix in with American culture.” 

Dealmonte-Castillo alleges that Mexicans who have spent time in the United States, so-called 

“pochos,” represent a distinctive subset in Mexican society by virtue of their dress, diet, and accent. 

Dealmonte-Castillo also contends that the Golf Cartel was aware of his status as a “pocho” and 

sought to make use of him. He testified that, after his refusal to work for them, he was kidnapped 

by gang members for a period of about two weeks, during which time he was threatened with harm 

if he did not agree to work for the gang. Dealmonte-Castillo told the IJ that he then escaped and 

immediately fled to the United States.

The IJ hearing this story declined to credit Dealmonte-Castillo’s testimony, however. The 

IJ noted inconsistencies in Dealmonte-Castillo’s testimony with regard to his identity-theft 

offenses, acknowledged the fact that Dealmonte-Castillo had been convicted of multiple fraud 
No. 18-3032, Dealmonte-Castillo v. Sessions

-3-

related offenses, and concluded that, “[g]iven respondent’s propensity for fraud . . . he has not 

offered credible testimony in these proceedings.” Although recognizing that an adverse credibility 

finding was dispositive of Dealmonte-Castillo’s case, the IJ additionally concluded that 

Dealmonte-Castillo’s proposed social group of Mexicans who have spent time in the United States 

was not socially distinctive, and the persecution Dealmonte-Castillo alleged was related to the 

skills he possessed rather than to his group status.

The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the IJ’s denial of Dealmonte-Castillo’s claims. 

The BIA first rejected Dealmonte-Castillo’s contention that the IJ had improperly relied on the 

fact of his prior criminal conviction to find him not credible, determining that the IJ had also relied 

on Dealmonte-Castillo’s inconsistent testimony during the hearing. The BIA further held that 

Dealmonte-Castillo had not shown the sufficient nexus between his status as a Mexican returning 

from the United States and the persecution he claimed to have suffered. 

Dealmonte-Castillo now petitions for review of the BIA’s decision, but this petition fails. 

Even if we were to reverse the IJ’s finding, upheld by the BIA, that Dealmonte-Castillo’s testimony 

was not credible, he still would not be entitled to asylum or withholding of removal, because he 

has not shown that he has suffered, or will suffer, harm based on his social group status.

1

Both asylum and withholding of removal require an alien to prove a connection between 

harm that would be suffered if he is returned to a country, and that alien’s “race, religion, 

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(42)(A); 1158(b)(1)(B)(i). Dealmonte-Castillo’s argument here is that he is a “pocho,” 

 

1 Dealmonte-Castillo made arguments under the Convention Against Torture to the Board and the IJ, but he makes no 

mention of that Convention in his brief, save for a mention in the Statement of Issues. Because only once noting a 

claim in the Statement of Issues, without any developed argument, is insufficient to preserve it, see Pryor v. Holder, 

436 F. App’x 471, 479 (6th Cir. 2011), any argument Dealmonte-Castillo has with respect to the Convention Against 

Torture is forfeited. 
No. 18-3032, Dealmonte-Castillo v. Sessions

-4-

a Mexican who has spent time in the United States, and thus a member of a distinct social group 

in Mexico. But we have repeatedly held that the social group of Mexicans returning from the 

United States is not a cognizable social group under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and its 

members are not entitled to relief on the basis of this identity. See Camacho-Villa v. Lynch, 661 

F. App’x 354, 357 (6th Cir. 2016); Sanchez-Robles v. Lynch, 808 F.3d 688, 692 (6th Cir. 2015); 

Diaz-Hernandez v. Holder, 635 F. App’x 159, 161 (6th Cir. 2015); Cano-Huerta v. Holder, 568 

F. App’x 371, 373 (6th Cir. 2014). Although we ourselves have not used the term “pocho,” the 

Ninth Circuit has explained that this term is synonymous with Mexicans returning from the United 

States, and that a self-identified “pocho” is not entitled to withholding of removal or asylum by 

nature of this identity. See Olivares-Calixto v. Sessions, 721 F. App’x 672, 673-74 (9th Cir. 2018)

(citing Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016) and Delgado-Ortiz v. 

Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1150-52 (9th Cir. 2010)). 

In addition, Dealmonte-Castillo has failed to demonstrate the required nexus between his

social group membership and a fear of persecution based on that membership. Both the IJ and the 

BIA found that, even on Dealmonte-Castillo’s account, he had been targeted for recruitment 

because of his perceived skills rather than on account of his identity as a “pocho.” This assessment 

of the record is subject to review only for substantial evidence in support, see I.N.S. v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992), and substantial evidence did support the conclusion that 

Dealmonte-Castillo was targeted only because of his perceived skills. There was no indication 

that his “pocho” identity mattered except insofar as it aligned with those perceived skills. 

Dealmonte-Castillo contends that he generally fears gang violence if returned to Mexico, but we 

have many times rejected this argument, holding that the risk of gang violence to a Mexican 

returning from the United States does not entitle that person to asylum, because a generalized fear 
No. 18-3032, Dealmonte-Castillo v. Sessions

-5-

of opportunistic gang members “is not a group membership recognized by the INA.” See SaucedoSolis v. Holder, 556 F. App’x 471, 474 (6th Cir. 2014) (collecting cases).

Because membership in a distinct social group and persecution as a result of that group 

membership are necessary prerequisites for relief under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 

Dealmonte-Castillo would not be entitled to asylum or withholding of removal, even if the IJ and 

Board had credited his testimony as true. We therefore need not reach the issue of the credibility

of the testimony, since this is not necessary for our disposition of the petition. 

The petition for review is DENIED.