N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
EFR AIN VILLEGAS SANC HEZ, AKA Efra in Sa nc he z Ville ga s, Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-70743 Age n c y No. A205-713-904
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 Oc tobe r 12, 2017 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TASHIM A a

n d B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s , a nd LEITM AN, *** Distric t Judge
.



# FIL ED OCT 16 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 ora l a

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

* * * The Honora

ble M atthe w Fre de ric k

Le itm an , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of M ic higa n, sitting by

de signa t ion.Efra in Ville ga s -Sanc he z , a native an d c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions for re vie w of the B o ard of Im

m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) de t e rm i nat ion tha t he is ine ligible for c a nc e lla tion of re m ova l a

nd its de nia l of withholding of re m ova l a nd de fe rra l of
re m ova l unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252. W e re v ie w que stions of la w de novo, Re tuta v . Holde r , 591 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th C ir. 2010), a nd de nia l of withholding of re m ova l and C AT re lie f for substa

ntia l e vide nc e , Shre

stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th C ir. 2010). W e de ny

the pe tition. 1. The Im

m igration Judge(“ IJ” ) and B IA c orre c tly de te rm ine d tha

t Ville ga sSanc he z ’ s guilty

ple a to posse ssion of a

c ontrolle d substa

nc e unde r C a lifornia He a lth & Sa fe ty C ode § 11377 is a c onvic tion for im

m igration purpose s. A
c rim ina l proc e e ding c onstitute s a “ c onvic tion” whe re a djudic at ion of guilt ha s be e n withhe ld if “ t

he a lie n ha s e nte re d a

ple a of guilty or nolo c onte nde re ” and “ the judge ha s orde re d

som e form

of punishm e nt, pe na lty , or re stra int on thea lie n’ s libe rty to be im pose d.” 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(48)(A). Ville ga s-Sanc he z e nte re d a guilty ple a , and the C a lifornia

sta te c ourt im

pose d a punishm e nt a

nd re stra int on his libe rty in orde ring him

to pa y re stitution a

n d c om ple te a drug dive rsion program . Se e Re

y e s v . Ly nc h , 834 F.3d 1104, 1108 (9th C i r. 2016) (holding tha t, unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1101(a )(48)(A)(ii), c ourt-orde re d fine s are punitive and tha t
2m andate d atte nda nc e of Alc oholic s Anony

m ous is a re stra i nt on libe rty ,

“ re ga rdle ss of the re ha

bilita tive purpose ” ). Ac c ordingly , Ville g a s -Sanc he z wa s
c onvic te d of a

c ontrolle d substa

nc e offe nse and is sta

tutorily ine ligiblefor
c anc e lla tion of re m ova l
. S

e e 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(b)(1)(C ); id. § 1182(a )(2)(A)(i)(II). 2. Ville ga s -San c he z is not e ntitle d to withholding of re m ova l. Eve n if we vie w e d his e x te nde d fam ily a s a pa rtic ula r soc ia l group, Ville ga s-Sanc h e z ha s not de m onstra

te d tha t his fa m i ly m e m be rs we re ta

rge te d “ on a c c ount of” the i r
re lationship to one

anothe r. Se e Garc ia v . Holde r , 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th C ir. 2014). R athe r, the c irc um sta nc e s in M e xic o tha

t Ville ga s-Sanc he z de sc ribe s a re of ge ne ra l c rim ina lity

and viole nc e , whic h is not a ba sis for re lie f unde r withholding of re m ova l. Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ An a lie n’ s de sire to be fre e from

ha ra ssm e nt by

c rim i na ls m otiva

te d by the ft or ra

ndom viole nc e by

ga ng m e m be rs be ars no ne xus to a

prote c te d ground.” ). Sim ila rly , e ve n if c rim ina ls would ta rge t Ville ga s -San c he z ba se d on a pe rc e ption tha

t he is a
re lative ly we a lthy de porte e , he ha s not e s ta

blishe d tha

t this ha rm would re sult from
m e m b e rship in a

pa rtic ula r soc ia l group. Ramire

z-Munoz v . Ly nc h , 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th C ir. 2016). Fina lly , Ville ga s-Sanc h e z fa ile d to spe c i fic a lly a ddre ss the IJ’ s de nia l of
re lie f unde r C AT on a

ppe a l be fore the B IA or be fore this c ourt. This issue is
3the re fore une xha uste d a nd wa ive d. Barron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004); M artine z-Se rrano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th C ir. 1996). The pe tition for re vie w is DE N IE D
.

4