NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 APPEALS
2 

the case, we do not recite them here. 

We review factual findings regarding 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. Torture 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 he 
3 

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. Petitioner’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. The hearing before the IJ 

elicited sufficient information to determine Petitioner’s asserted social group, see

Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 189, 191 (BIA 2018), and the 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 qualifies as a relative under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). But standing 

alone, having one or more young children who are U.S. citizens does not satisfy 

the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” exception to withholding of 
4 

removal. See Partap v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1173, 1175 (9th Cir. 2010). Petitioner

did not present additional information about a qualifying family member, such as 

medical concerns or learning disabilities, that might permit relief under this 

exception. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.