JS/Panel NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIO JIMENEZ

- VILLANUEVA,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 20

- 73234 Agency No. A213

- 078

- 421

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 17, 2023 * * Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW, CHRISTEN, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
Antonio Jimenez

- Villanueva, a native and citizen of Mexico , petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum , withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We dismiss

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously con cludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

AUG 21 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

the petition as to asylum for lack of jurisdiction , and we deny the petition as to withholding of removal and CAT relief.
1. We lack jurisdiction to review Jimenez

- Villanueva’s asylum claim. Jimenez

- Villanueva argues that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s determination that Jimenez

- Villanueva had not established “extraordinary circumstances” to excuse his failure to comply with the one

- year filing deadline for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). We have jurisdiction to review an extraordinary circumstances determination only with regard to c onstitutional claims and questions of law , includ ing mixed questions of law and fact involving the application of law to undisputed facts

. Gasparyan v. Holder , 707 F.3d 1130, 1133

– 34 (9th Cir. 2013). Here, Jimenez

- Villanueva argues on appeal that his menta l health diagnosis resulted in his failure to file a timely application , but he has also argued that his be late d discovery of the asylum process caused his failure to file within a year of arrival. The G overnment continues to argue that the latter was the actual reason for Jimenez

- Villanueva’s delay. Because the BIA’s extraordinary circumstances determination does not rest upon undisputed facts , we lack jurisdiction to review Jimenez

- Villanueva’s asylum claim. Id

. (dismissing a petition chal lenging the BIA’s extraordinary circumstances determination for lack of jurisdiction because the underlying facts were disputed).
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s dismissal of Jimenez

-3

Villanueva’s appeal of the IJ’s denial of withholding of remov al. Although applicants for withholding of removal must meet a less demanding nexus standard than for asylum, where , as here, “the BIA adopt [s] the IJ’s finding of no nexus ” between the harm and the alleged protected ground(s) , the outcome is the same for both forms of relief. Singh v. Barr , 935 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2019) (emphasis in original)

. E ven if we assume that Jimenez

- Villanueva’s pro pos ed social group of “youth in Mexico, ages 12 to 20, who are forced to collaborate with the drug cartels ” is cognizable, Jimenez

- Villanueva has long since aged out of that social
group. Further , even if we assume that Jimenez

- Villanueva manifested an anti

gang political opinion by refusing to join the Knights Templar, the record does not compel the conclusio n that it is more likely than not that Jimenez

- Villanueva would be persecuted by the Knights Templar on account of a protected ground , as Jimenez

- Villanueva’s own submitted evidence state s that the gang no longer exists

. 3. Finally, substantial evidence s upports the BIA’s dismissal of Jimenez

Villanueva’s appeal of the IJ’s denial of CAT relief. Jimenez

- Villanueva argues that members of the Knights Templar tortured him, and that “[a]t this time in Mexico, one can hardly discern between the government and a criminal

. ” T he record does not compel the conclusion that Jimenez

- Villanueva would more likely than not be tortured with the government’s involvement or acquiescence if he
returned to Mexico , especially when his own evidence states that the gang no4

longer exists

. See Delgado

- Ortiz v. Holder , 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (“Petitioners’ generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is not particular to Petitioners and is insuffici ent to meet this standard.”).
DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART
.