NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 , petition s 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 Conven tion Against Torture (“CAT”)

.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except a s 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, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

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 governin g 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 a ssuming 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 ‘establ ish 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, Renteria

Avalos’ 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 th e 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
op portunities 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.