NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN SEBASTIAN ZAMORA-SANCHEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 21-70260 

Agency No. A215-544-103 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. 

Juan Sebastian Zamora-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing 

his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against 

* 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

APR 25 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 21-70260 

Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for 

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 

F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo questions of law, including 

whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that deference 

is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Id. at 

1241-42. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not err in concluding Zamora-Sanchez failed to establish 

membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 

1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (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 Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 

1103 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The particularity element requires characteristics that 

provide a clear benchmark for determining who falls within the group,” and “[t]he 

group must also be discrete and have definable boundaries—it must not be 

amorphous, overbroad, diffuse, or subjective.” (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted)). To the extent Zamora-Sanchez raises new proposed particular 

social groups in his opening brief, we lack jurisdiction to consider them because he

failed to raise the issues before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 
3 21-70260 

677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative 

proceedings below). Thus, Zamora-Sanchez’s asylum and withholding of removal 

claims fail.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection 

because Zamora-Sanchez 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). 

Zamora-Sanchez’s opposed request (Docket Entry No. 26) for administrative 

closure is denied.

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.