NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 14a0304n.06

No. 13-3634

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

CRISTOBAL RENTERIA-CORTES,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW 

FROM THE UNITED STATES 

BOARD OF IMMIGRATION 

APPEALS

BEFORE: DAUGHTREY, McKEAGUE, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. Cristobal Renteria-Cortes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this 

court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal 

from the denial of his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the United 

Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). We deny the petition for review.

Renteria-Cortes entered the United States illegally in 2000, crossing the border at or near 

Douglas, Arizona. In 2008, he was arrested and served with a notice to appear that charged him 

with removability as “[a]n alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled.” 

8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Renteria-Cortes appeared before an immigration judge (IJ), 

admitted the factual allegations set forth in the notice to appear, and conceded removability as 

charged. Renteria-Cortes subsequently filed an application for asylum, withholding of removal, 

and CAT protection, in which he claimed that he feared returning to his hometown because of 

drug-trafficking and related violence. Renteria-Cortes asserted that drug-traffickers will assume 
No. 13-3634

Renteria-Cortes v. Holder

- 2 -

that he has money because he has been in the United States and will threaten, kidnap, torture, or 

even kill him and his family.

After a hearing during which Renteria-Cortes and his wife testified, the IJ denied his 

applications for relief but granted post-conclusion voluntary departure for 30 days. The IJ found 

that Renteria-Cortes was credible but had no firsthand knowledge about the events to which he 

testified and provided no corroborating evidence from anyone with firsthand knowledge, noting 

that the case was “based almost entirely on hearsay, double hearsay and triple or quadruple 

hearsay.” The IJ determined that Renteria-Cortes failed to establish by clear and convincing 

evidence that his asylum application was timely filed. Even if timely, the IJ went on to 

determine, Renteria-Cortes failed to prove eligibility for asylum because he made no claim of 

past persecution and because he failed to demonstrate that he feared persecution on account of a 

protected ground, that the Mexican government was unable or unwilling to protect him, or that it 

would be unreasonable for him to relocate to another part of Mexico. According to the IJ, 

Renteria-Cortes also necessarily failed to meet the higher standard of proof for withholding of 

removal and, having presented no evidence that he would more likely than not be subjected to 

torture, failed to demonstrate eligibility for CAT protection.

The BIA dismissed Renteria-Cortes’s appeal from the IJ’s decision, rejecting his 

argument that the IJ denied him due process and concluding that he received a full and fair 

hearing. The BIA also agreed with the IJ that Renteria-Cortes’s asylum application was 

untimely and declined to address the merits of that application. Concluding that Renteria-Cortes 

did not satisfy his burden of proof for withholding of removal, the BIA determined that he failed 

to show that he cannot reasonably obtain evidence to corroborate his and his wife’s hearsay 

testimony or that his life or freedom would be threatened in Mexico on account of a protected 
No. 13-3634

Renteria-Cortes v. Holder

- 3 -

ground. Finally, the BIA agreed with the IJ that Renteria-Cortes failed to establish that he will 

likely be tortured if he returns to Mexico. The BIA reinstated the period of voluntary departure.

Renteria-Cortes now petitions for review of the denial of his applications for withholding 

of removal and CAT protection but does not challenge the denial of his asylum application as 

untimely. When, as here, “the BIA reviews the immigration judge’s decision and issues a 

separate opinion, rather than summarily affirming the immigration judge’s decision, we review 

the BIA’s decision as the final agency determination.” Khalili v. Holder, 557 F.3d 429, 435 (6th 

Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). We review the BIA’s factual determinations for substantial 

evidence, reversing only if “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the 

contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Dieng v. Holder, 698 F.3d 866, 871-72 (6th Cir. 2012).

Withholding of removal “is mandatory if the alien establishes that his ‘life or freedom 

would be threatened in [the proposed country of removal on account of] race, religion, 

nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’” Khalili, 557 F.3d at 

435 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A)). When, as here, Renteria-Cortes does not claim past 

persecution, he may demonstrate that his life or freedom would be threatened in the future if he 

can establish that it is “more likely than not” that he would be persecuted on account of a 

protected ground upon removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2). 

To that end, Renteria-Cortes contends that he has a well-founded fear of returning to 

Mexico on account of his membership in a particular social group — Mexicans returning from 

the United States who are perceived as having wealth and money. However, we have adopted 

“social visibility” as a requirement of a cognizable group under the Immigration and Nationality 

Act (INA). See Umana-Ramos v. Holder, 724 F.3d 667, 671 (6th Cir. 2013). “[S]ocial visibility 

requires that the set of individuals with the shared characteristic be perceived as a group by 
No. 13-3634

Renteria-Cortes v. Holder

- 4 -

society.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Being perceived as wealthy as a 

result of living in the United States is not a group membership recognized by the INA. See, e.g., 

Lopez-Castro v. Holder, 577 F.3d 49, 54 (1st Cir. 2009). Indeed, Renteria-Cortes testified that 

drug-traffickers in his hometown have attacked both persons who have returned from the United 

States and persons who have continued to live there. A general fear of crime and economic 

problems does not constitute, by itself, a legitimate fear of persecution. See Koliada v. INS, 

259 F.3d 482, 488 (6th Cir. 2001).

Furthermore, Renteria-Cortes did not provide any documentation, such as statements 

from his family members, to corroborate his and his wife’s hearsay testimony about the violence 

in his hometown. Although hearsay is admissible in removal proceedings, if, as here, “it is 

reasonable to expect corroborating evidence for certain alleged facts pertaining to the specifics of 

an applicant’s claim, such evidence should be provided.” Lin v. Holder, 565 F.3d 971, 977 (6th 

Cir. 2009) (quoting Dorosh v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 379, 382 (6th Cir. 2004)). “The absence of 

such corroborating evidence can lead to a finding that an applicant has failed to meet [his] 

burden of proof.” Id. According to Renteria-Cortes, his family members attempted to send him 

letters and newspapers, but the local post office told them that those items were not allowed to be 

sent to the United States. Even so, the record does not compel the conclusion that corroborating 

evidence was otherwise unavailable to Renteria-Cortes. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4).

In support of his claim for CAT protection, Renteria-Cortes merely adopts the argument 

in support of his withholding of removal claim, “especially regarding Petitioner’s past harm 

amounting to persecution.” (Pet’r’s Br. 23). But Renteria-Cortes has never claimed past 

persecution. Thus, to succeed on his claim for CAT protection, he must establish a 

“particularized threat of torture” that “must be inflicted, instigated, consented to, or acquiesced 
No. 13-3634

Renteria-Cortes v. Holder

- 5 -

in, by state actors.” Castellano-Chacon v. INS, 341 F.3d 533, 551-52 (6th Cir. 2003), abrogated 

on other grounds by Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743 (6th Cir. 2006). Because substantial 

evidence in the record does not support the conclusion that Renteria-Cortes is likely to be 

tortured if he returns to Mexico, he is not entitled to CAT relief.

For the foregoing reasons, we deny Renteria-Cortes’s petition for review.