N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M ARIO PER

A LTA REYES, Pe t i tione r, v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-71189 Age n c y No. A201-282-926 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 15, 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 N OV 17 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.M ario Pe ra lta -R e y e s , a native and c itiz e n of M e x ic o , pe t itions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA’ s” ) de nia l of withholding of re m ova l unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)(3) a nd prote c tion unde r the Unite d Nat ions C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie 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 a nd prote c tion unde r C AT for substa ntia l e vide nc e , Shre

s tha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th C ir. 2010). W e de ny the pe tition. Pe ra lta -R e y e s argue s he is e ligible for withholding of rem ova l ba s e d on m e m b e rship in the

propose d pa

rtic ula r soc ia l group “Am e ric aniz e d M e x ic ans” or

“ poc h os.” W e hav e pre viously he ld tha t suc h a group doe s not m e e t the le ga l re quire m e nts for a

pa rtic u la r soc ia l group unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)(3). Se e Ramire z-Munoz v . Ly nc h , 816 F.3d 1226, 1228–29 (9th C ir. 2016) (de ny ing withholding of rem o v a l be c a use pe titione rs’ propose d group, “ im pute d we a lthy Am e ric ans,” wa s not c o gniz a ble a s a pa rtic ula r soc i a l group); De l

gado-Ortiz v. Holde r , 600 F.3d 1148, 1151–52 (9th C ir. 2010) (de ny i ng withholding of re m ova l be c a use “ [p] e titione rs’ propose d soc ia l group, ‘ re turning M e xic ans from the Unite d State s,’ . . . is too broad to qua lify a s a c ogniz a b le soc ia l group” ). The B IA prope rly de nie d Pe ra l ta -R e y e s’ s withholding of re m o v a l c la i m . 2W ith re spe c t to theC AT c la im , Pe ra lta -R e y e s a dm its he ha s re turne d to

M e x ic o m

ultipletim e s without ha

rm and tha

t his fa m i ly ha s re m a ine d in M e xic o without ha

rm . He ha s not shown he is a ny m ore like ly

to be a vic tim of viole nc e or c rim e tha n the popula c e of M e xic o a s a whole . Substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s de nia l of Pe ra lta -R e y e s’ s C AT c la im . S e eRamire z-Munoz , 816 F.3d a

t 1230 (“ Whe re Pe titione rs ha ve not shown they

are any m ore like ly

to be vic tim s of viole nc e and c rim e s tha

n the popula c e a s a

whole in M e xic o, the y

hav e fa ile d to c arry the i r burde n.” ); De lgado-Ortiz , 600 F.3d a t 1152 (“ Pe t itione rs’ ge ne ra liz e d e vide nc e of viole nc e and c rim e in M e xic o is not pa rtic ula r to Pe titione rs a

nd is insuffic ie nt to m e e t th[e ] sta nda rd [for re lie f unde r C AT] .” ). W e have c onside re d Pe ra lta -R e y e s’ s othe r a rgum e nts a

nd find the m to be without me rit. The pe tition for re vie w is DE NIE D .

3