N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
HERIB ER TO VALENZUELAVALENZUELA,

Pe t i tione r, v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-70800 Age n c y No. A095-725-283 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 14, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SM ITH, *** C hie f Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED DEC 14 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble W illia m E. Sm ith, C hie f Unite d

State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of R

hode Isla nd, sitting by de signa

tion.He ribe rto Va l e nz ue la -Va le nzue la (Va le nzue l a -Va le nzue la ) is a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o. He pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (B IA) fina l orde r de ny i ng his m otion to re o pe n to a pply for withholding of rem ova l pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)(3) a nd re lie f unde r the Unite d Nations C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C A T). Jurisdic tion e xists under 8 U.S.C . § 1252. TheC o urt re vie ws the B IA’ s de nia l of a m otion to re ope n for a

buse of disc re tion. RamirezMunoz v . Ly nc h , 816 F.3d 1226, 1228 (9th C ir. 2016). Thepe tition is de nie d. First, Va le nz ue la -Va l e nz ue la a sse rts m e m

be rship in thepropose d pa rtic ula r soc i a l group “ Am e ric aniz e d M e xic ans” or “poc hos” to a rgue e l igibility

for withholding of rem o v a l. This C ourt, howe ve r, ha s una m biguously re je c te d this propose d soc i a l group a s not c ogniz a ble unde r the Im

m igrat ion a

nd Na tiona lity Ac t. Se e Ramire

z-Munoz , 816 F.3d a

t 1228–29; De lgado-Ortiz v. Holde r , 600 F.3d 1148, 1151–52 (9th C i r. 2010) (pe r c uriam ). M ore ove r, Va le nz ue la -Va le nzue la provide d “ insuffic ie nt e vide nc e to support [his] c l a im

tha t [his] a lle ge d Am e ric an a p pe aranc e will m ake [him a ] ta rge t[] for viole nt c rim e s upon re turn to M e xic o a ny m ore tha n the popula c e at la rge .” Ramire

z-Munoz , 816 F.3d a

t 1229. Thee vide nc e Va le nzu e la -Va le nzue la se t forth to de m onstra

te c ha nge d c irc um sta

nc e s de ta ile d c rim e a ga inst Am e ric ans, pe rsons with Ame ric a

n re lative s, m igra

nts, a n d a fflue nt a

nd m iddle -c la ss M e xic an 2re side nts. This evide n c e doe s not, howe ve r, de m onstra te tha t c rim e a g a inst the se groups ne c e ssa

rily tra nsla t e s to a n inc re a se d risk to Vale n z ue la -Va le nzue la ba se d on his a lle ge d

Am e ric aniz e d M e xic an

sta tus, a nd Va le nzue la -Va le nzue la ’ s c onc lusory

a sse rtion in his ope

n ing brie f that “ those pe rc e ive d a s Am e ric ans c le arly run the sa

m e risk” c annot c arry

the da y . The B IA, the re fore , did not a buse its disc re t ion in de ny ing Va l e nz ue la -Va le nzue la ’ s m otion to re ope n with re spe c t to his withholding-of-re

m ova l c la i m . Va le nz ue la -Va le nz ue la ’ s a rgum e nt with re s pe c t to C AT re lie f is simila rly de fic ie nt. To pre va il on this c la im , Pe titione r m ust de m onstra

t e it is more like ly tha n not he would be torture d upon re m ova l to M e xic o. Ramire z -Munoz , 816 F.3d at 1230. He re , Va le nz ue la -Va l e nzue la c ross-re fe re nc e s the sa

m e e vide nc e a dva nc e d in thec onte xt of his a rgum e nt for withholding of re m ova l . Ye t, this

“ ge ne ra liz e d e vide nc e of viole n c e and c rim e in M e xic o is not pa rtic ula r to Pe titione r[] and is insuffic ie nt to m e e t this sta nda rd.” De lgado-Ortiz , 600 F.3d a t 1152; se ealso Rie ra-Rie ra v . Ly nc h , 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th C ir. 2016) (“ [H] e othe rwise re lie s on ge ne ra liz e d e vide nc e , whic h is insuffic ie nt for prote c tion unde r C AT.” ). Thus, theB IA did not a buse its disc re tion in deny i ng Va le nzue la
Va le nz ue la ’ s m otion to re o pe n ba se d on C AT prote c tion.

3Fina lly , this C ourt la c ks jurisdic tion to re v ie w the B IA’ s de nia l of

a dm inistra

tive c losure
. Diaz-C

ov arrubias v. Muk

ase y , 551 F.3d 1114, 1118–20 (9th C ir. 2009). Ac c ordingly , be c a

use Va le nzue la -Va le n z ue la ha s not shown tha

t the B IA a buse d its disc re tion, thepe tition for re vie w is DE N IE D .

4