NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LUIS FELIPE ROJAS-MACIEL, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-70671 

Agency No. A205-648-486 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 2, 2020**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Luis Felipe Rojas-Maciel, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, 

withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and 

cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUN 8 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-70671 

de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), 

except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the 

governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th 

Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. 

Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the 

petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Rojas-Maciel applied for 

asylum within a reasonable time of any changed or extraordinary circumstances as 

to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 

1208.4(a)(4), (5); Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2010).

Thus, Rojas-Maciel’s asylum claim fails.

As to withholding of removal, the agency did not err in finding that RojasMaciel failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. 

Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership 

in a particular social group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) 

composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined 

with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.’” 

(quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also 

Ramirez-Munoz v. Holder, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding 

“imputed wealthy Americans” returning to Mexico did not constitute a particular 
3 18-70671 

social group); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(concluding “returning Mexicans from the United States” did not constitute a 

particular social group). Thus, Rojas-Maciel’s withholding of removal claim fails. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Rojas-Maciel failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with 

the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See 

Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of 

torture).

The record does not support Rojas-Maciel’s contentions that the agency 

failed to consider evidence or otherwise provided insufficient analysis of his 

claims. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need 

not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 

603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA 

reviewed the record).

As to cancellation of removal, the record does not support Rojas-Maciel’s

contentions that the agency applied the incorrect standard in evaluating hardship to 

his United States citizen children. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(d); see also Figueroa 

v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 493-496 (9th Cir. 2008) (court has jurisdiction to review 

whether IJ required a showing of “unconscionable” hardship); Cabrera-Alvarez v. 

Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1006, 1013 (9th Cir. 2005) (children’s hardships were not 
4 18-70671 

“exceptional and extremely unusual,” where although “the children would suffer 

emotionally” if separated from their father, they would be cared for in the United 

States by family).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.