N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
NOE TENORIO-GONZALEZ, AKA Noe Te norio, Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-71043 Age n c y No. A200-154-062
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 August 7, 2019 ** B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , HAW K INS and M c KEOW N, C irc u it Judge s. Noe Te norio Gonz a le z , a

native and 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” ) orde r dism i ssing Te norio’ s a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing Te n orio’ s a pplic ation for 

# FIL ED AUG 26 2019 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).withholding of rem o v a l a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w de novo que stions of la w, C e r e zo v . Muk ase y , 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th C ir. 2008), e xc e pt to thee xte nt tha t de fe re nc e is owe d to the B IA's inte rpre tation of thegove rning sta tute s a nd re gula tions, Sime onov

v . Ashc roft , 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th C ir. 2004). W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c t ua l findings, Ze haty e v . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th C ir. 2006), a nd
we de ny in pa rt a nd dismi ss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. The B IA did not e rr in finding tha t Te norio fa ile d to e sta

blish m e m

b e rship in
a c ogniz a ble soc ia l group. Se e Re

y e s v . Ly nc h , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th C ir. 2016) (e xpla ining c ogniz a b ility sta nda rd) (c iting Matte r of M-E-G-V- , 26 I & N De c . 227, 237 (B IA 2014)). Te norio c la im e d to be long to a soc ia l group of “m a l e M e x ic an[s] re turning to a c o untry tha t is na rc o-drug infe ste d.” W e have he ld, howe v e r, tha

t M e xic ans re turning from the Unite d State s do not c onstitute a pa rtic u la r soc ia l group. D e lgado-Ortiz v. Holde r , 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th C ir. 2010). Substa

ntia l e v ide nc e supports the a ge n c y ’ s c onc lusion tha

t Te norio othe rwise fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t he would bepe rse c ute d

on a c c o unt of a prote c te d ground. Se e Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C ir. 2010) (a n a pplic ant’ s

“ de sire to be fre e from ha ra ssm e nt by

c rim ina ls m otiva

te d by the ft or ra

n dom
2viole nc e by

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

prote c te d ground” ). Thus, Te norio’ s withholding of re m ova l c la im

fa ils. W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r Te n orio’ s a rgum e n t tha

t the IJ e rre d in de ny ing C AT prote c tion be c a use this a rgum e nt wa s not ra ise d be fore the B IA. 8 U.S.C . § 1252(d)(1); Figue roa v . Muk ase y , 543 F.3d 487, 492 (9th C ir. 2008). The IJ did not a

b use its disc re tion in de c iding not to gra nt Te norio a
c ontinua nc e to c om

ple te a de c la

ra tion in support of his a

pplic ation. Se e Biw ot v
. Gonzale s , 403 F.3d 1094, 1099 (9th C ir. 2005) (“ Abse nt a showing of c l e ar a

buse , we ty pic a lly do not disturb a

n IJ’ s disc re tiona

ry de c ision not to c ontinuea he aring.” ). The IJ gra

nte d Te norio four pre vious c ontinua nc e s , tota ling ne arly

one y e ar, to re ta in c ounse l, submit a n a pplic ation, a

n d c om ple te the de c la

ra tion. Se e Garc ia v . Ly nc h , 798 F.3d 876, 881 (9th C ir. 2015) (holding tha t the IJ prope rly
e xe rc ise d disc re tion in deny ing a fourth c o ntinua

nc e ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

3