NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS ANGEL RAMIREZ BARRAGAN,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 18

- 72891 Agency No. A208

- 967

- 444

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted February 18, 2022 San Francisco, California Before: GOULD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and ZIPPS, * * District Judge. Luis Angel Ramirez Barragan (“Petitioner”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) and denial of his motion for
remand . Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable Jennifer G. Zipps, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAR 7 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

the case, we do not recite them here.
We review factual findings regard ing a petitioner’s claim for protection
under the CAT for substantial evidence. Lopez v. Sessions , 901 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 2018)



### . “ We review the BIA ’ s denial of a motion to reopen and remand
for abuse of discretion” and “[t]he BIA abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law.” Movsisian v. Ashcroft , 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted)

. We review de novo whether a

group constitutes a particular social group. Pirir

- Boc v. Holder , 750 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2014)

. 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner
did not qualify for protection under the CAT. To qualify for protection under the CAT, a petitioner must show that “ it is more likely than not that he or she would be
tortured if removed .” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16 (c)(2) ; see also Pirir

- Boc , 750 F.3d at
1085

. T orture requires the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering

“ inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.” Kamalthas v. I.N.S. , 251
F.3d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1) )

. Here, as the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found and the BIA upheld, Petitioner provides no evidence that Mexican government officials instigated, consented, or acquiesced in his uncle’s kidnapping . Nor does he give any evidence that he3

would be targeted for kidnapping because of his family connection to his uncle. Petitioner’s fear of torture on account of his tattoos is based on generalized evidence of violence and gang recruitment in Mexico. P etitioner ’s “ generalized
evidence of violence and crime in Mexico ,” is insufficient “ to establish prima facie eligibility for protection under the CAT .” Delgado

- Ortiz v. Holder , 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010).
2. The BIA properly exercised discretion in denying Petitioner’s request for remand to delineate his proposed social group. T he hearing before the IJ
elicited sufficient information to determine Petitioner’s asserted social group , s ee
Matter of W

- Y

- C

- & H

- O

- B

- , 27 I. & N. Dec. 189, 191 (BIA 2018 ) , and t he IJ ’s
decision correctly identified Petitioner’s proposed social group as “ returning
Mexicans from the United States .” We have held that this proposed social group

“ is too broad to qualify as a cognizable social group.” Delgado

- Ortiz , 600 F.3d at
1151

– 52

. 3. The BIA did not err in denying Petitioner’s motion to remand to seek
cancellation relief because Petitioner did not demonstrate sufficient hardship to a qualifying family member

. Petitioner has at least one young child who is a U.S.
citizen and qualif

ies as a relative under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) (1) (D)

. But s tanding alone, having one or more young children who are U.S. citizens does not satisfy
the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” exception to withholding of4

removal. See Partap v. Holder , 603 F.3d 1173, 1175 (9th Cir. 2010). Petitioner
did not present additional information abou t a qualifying family member , such as
medical concerns or learning disabilities, that might permit relief under this exception.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
.