N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT OSC AR ALB E R TO ALONSOC ASTENADA, AKA Osc ar C a sta ne da , AKA Osc a

r Alonso C a s te na d a , AKA Osc a r Alonz o C a ste ne da , Pe t i tione r, v. M ATTHEW

G. W H ITAKER , Ac t ing Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-73580 Age n c y No. A200-626-073 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 i tte d Oc tobe r 9, 2018 ** Portla nd, Ore gon 

# F IL ED NOV 19 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B e fore : FISHER and C ALLAHAN, C i rc uit Judge s, a nd B ENC IVENGO, *** Distric t Judge . Pe titione r, Osc ar Albe rto Alonso-C a ste na da (“ Alonso-C a ste na da ” ), se e ks re vie w of a

n orde r of the B oa

rd of Im m igrat ion Appe a ls (“ B oa

rd” ) de ny ing his a pplic a tion for a s y lum an d withholding of rem ova l. Alonso-C a ste na da argue s tha t (1) e x tra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e s justify

his untime ly

a sy lum a pplic a tion; (2) the B oa rd e rre d in de t e rm ining tha t he fa ile d to e sta blish m e m

be rship in a

pa rtic ula r soc i a l group; a

nd (3)the B oa

rd e rre d in de te rm ining tha t he doe s not ha

ve a we llfounde d fe ar of pe rse c ution. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252 and we de ny the pe tition. 1. To be e ligiblefor a s y lum , a n a lie n m ust prove “ by

c le ar and c o nvinc ing e vide nc e tha

t the a pplic a tion ha s be e n file d within 1 y e ar a fte r the date of the a lie n’ s a rriva l in theUnite d State s.” 8 U.S.C . § 1158(a )(2)(B ). An untim e ly a pplic a tion m ay be c o n side re d if the a lie n de m onstra te s “ e xtra ordina

ry c irc um s ta nc e s re lating to the

de la y in filing a

n a pplic a tion.” Id. § 1158(a )(2)(D). Alonso-C a s te na d a

argue s tha

t his “ la c k of c ontinue d a c c e ss to le ga l c ounse l” c onstitute d a

n e xtra ordina

ry c irc um sta

nc e justify ing the de la

y in his filing of a

n a pplic a tion for a s y lum . Howe ve r, the a l le ge d inte rfe re nc e with Alonso-

* * * The Honora

ble C a thy Ann B e nc ive n go, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa t ion. 2C a ste na da ’ s re p re se ntation oc c urre d afte r he file d his a

pplic a tion for re lie f, so it wa s not “ re late d to the de l ay in filing a

n a pplic a tion.” 8 U.S.C . § 1158(a )(2)(D). Furthe r, Alonso-C a ste na da ’ s a lle ge d fe ar of re m ova l doe s not e xc use his de la y . The B oa rd prope rly

pre t e rm itte d Alonso-C a ste na da ’ s a sy lum a pplic at ion. 2. To e s ta

blish e ligibility

for withholding of rem ova l, a n a pplic a n t m ust de m onstra

te a c le a r proba bility of pe rse c ution in the c ountry de s igna te d for re m ova l ba se d upon ra c e , re ligion, na tiona lity , politic a l opinion, or me m b e rship in a pa rtic ula r soc ia l group. S

e e IN S v . Ste v ic , 467 U.S. 407, 429–30 (1984). To e sta blish m e m

be rship in a

pa rtic ula r soc ia l group, Alonso-C a ste na da m ust de m onstra

te : (1) “ t he e xiste nc e of a

c ogniz a ble pa rtic ula r soc ia l group,” (2) “ his m e m b e rship in tha

t pa rtic ula r soc ia l group,” and (3) “ a risk of pe rse c ution on a c c ount of his me m

be rship in thespe c ifie d pa rtic ula r soc ia l group.” Ay ala v . Holde r , 640 F.3d 1095, 1097–98 (9th C ir. 2011). To sa tisfy the pa rtic u la rity re quire m e nt, a

group m ust be “ re c ogniz e d, in thesoc ie t y in que stion, a s a disc re te c la ss of pe rsons,” He nrique z-Riv as v . Holde r , 707 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9th C ir. 2013), and m ust not be“ a

m orphous, ove rbroa d, diffuse , or subje c tive ,” Matte r of W -G-R- , 26 I. & N. De c . 208, 214 (B IA 2014); se e Re y e s v . Ly n c h , 842 F.3d 1125, 1139 (9th C ir. 2016). For a

group to ha

ve soc ia l distinc tion the re m ust e xist suffic ie nt e vide nc e tha

t it is “ pe rc e i ve d a s a

group by soc ie ty ,” re g ardle ss of whe the r the 3soc i e ty c an ide ntify the m e m be rs of the group by

sight. He nrique

z-Riv as , 707 F.3d a t 1085 (c iting Matte r of S-E-G- , 24 I. & N. De c . 579, 585 (B IA 2008)). Alonso-C a s te na d a

ha s fa ile d to shoulder his burde n of showing m e m

be rship in a c ogniz a

ble soc i a l group. First, a s he did not c le a rly artic ulate a

pa rtic ula r soc i a l group be fore the a ge nc y , he m ay have wa ive d

the issue . Se e Fahoud v . I.N .S. , 122 F.3d 794, 796 (9th C ir. 1997) (noting tha t fa ilure to ra ise an issue be low c onstitute s fa ilure to e xha ust a dm inistra

tive re m e die s a

nd m ay de prive the c ourt of jurisdic tion to he ar the m a tte r). Se c ond, to thee xte nt tha t Alonso-C a ste na da c la im s tha

t he i s a m e m

be r of a pa rtic u la r group of individua

ls who te stifie d a ga inst sm uggle rs, or of a

group of individua

ls who a re like l y to be c oe rc e d into joining a drug c arte l, he fa ile d to de ve lop a re c ord to support such c la im s. He ha s not pre s e nte d a

ny e vide nc e of re c ognition of the propose d groups or of how the y m ight be de fine d. Se e Re

y e s , 842 F.3d a

t 1139; se e a lso Matte r of W –G–R– , 26 I. & N. De c . at 221 (“ The bounda rie s of a group a re not suffic ie ntly

de fina b le unle ss the m e m b e rs of soc ie t

y ge ne ra l ly

a gre e on who is inc lude d in the group, a nd e vide nc e that the soc ia l group propose d by the re sponde nt is re c ogniz e d within the soc ie ty is la c king in this c a se . ” ). 3. Alonso-C a ste na d a

c ha lle nge s the B oa

rd’ s c onc lusion tha

t he did not de m onstra

te c le a r proba bility of future pe rse c ution. Hera i se s this a rgum e nt sole l y 4with re spe c t to his a sy l um c la im . B e c a

use we hold tha

t his a sy lum

c la im is untim e l y , we do not re a c h this issue . The pe tition for re vie w is DENIED.

5