NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS RENTERIA-AVALOS, AKA 

Carlos Renteria, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-71524 

Agency No. A200-681-812 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 7, 2019**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges 

Carlos Renteria-Avalos, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

* 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).

FILED

AUG 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

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 deny the petition for review.

Where, as here, the BIA assumes an alien is credible rather than reviewing 

the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, we assume credibility and review the BIA’s 

opinion on its merits. See Barazza Rivera v. I.N.S., 913 F.2d 1443, 1449–50 (9th 

Cir. 1990).

Even assuming changed circumstances justify Renteria-Avalos’ untimely 

application for asylum, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of his 

asylum claim on its merits. The BIA did not err in finding that Renteria-Avalos

did not establish membership in a cognizable social group. 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))). Thus, RenteriaAvalos’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
3 

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because 

Renteria-Avalos 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). 

Finally, the IJ’s failure to consider Renteria-Avalos’ eligibility for voluntary 

departure did not violate due process. The IJ gave Renteria-Avalos many 

opportunities to advance his voluntary departure request during his hearing, yet his 

attorney indicated that there would be no such request. Thus, there was no 

violation of due process. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th 

Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both 

a violation of rights and prejudice.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.