N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ANTONIO C R

UZ-ARR EDONDO, Pe t i tione r,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-71039 Age n c y No. A073-816-233
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 7, 2021 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : W . FLETC HER , IKUTA, a nd B R ESS, C irc uit Judge s . Antonio C ruz Arre dondo (“ C ruz ” ) pe titions for re vie w of a de c i sion by

the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) holding tha t he is ine ligiblefor
c anc e lla tion of re m ova l , and de ny i ng withholding of re m ova l a nd re lie f unde r the 

# FIL ED OCT 15 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
.

§ 1252(a )(1), and we de ny the pe tition. 1. C anc e lla

tion of R e m ova l: The B IA c orre c t ly found tha

t C ruz is ine ligible for c a nc e lla tion of re m ova l be c a

use he fa ile d to c om

ple t e the dive rsion progra m for his 2000 C a lifornia drug posse ssion c onvic tion. A nonc itiz e n is ine ligiblefor
c anc e lla tion if hewa s “ c onvic te d of . . . a viola tion of . . . a

ny la w . . . re lating to a
c ontrolle d substa

nc e .” 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(2)(A); se e also id. § 1229b(b)(1)(C ). While a sta te drug posse ssion c onvic tion norm a lly qua lifie s a s a c onvic tion unde r this provision, the

re is a lim ite d e xc e ption if the c onvic tion (1) oc c urre d prior to 2011, (2) wa s e xpunge d unde r state la w, a n d (3) c o uld, if c ha

rge d a s a fe d e ra l
c rim e , ha ve be e n e xpunge d unde r the Fe de ra l First Offe nde r Ac t (“ FFOA” ). Se e Lujan-Arme ndariz v . IN

S , 222 F.3d 728, 749 (9th C ir. 2000), o v e rrule d prospe c t iv e ly by N

une z-Re y e s v . Holde r , 646 F.3d 684 (9th C ir. 2011) (e n ba nc ). B ut a c onvic t ion c annot be e xpunge d unde r the FFOA whe n a de fe nda nt viola te s a
c ondition of his proba

tion, a s C ruz did whe n, in Ja nua ry 2001, he fa ile d to
c om ple t e his dive rsion progra m . Se e Estrada v . Holde r , 560 F.3d 1039, 1041–42 (9th C ir. 2009), o v e rrule d on othe r grounds by Me llouli v . Ly nc h , 135 S. C t. 1980 (2015); 18 U.S.C . §§ 3607(a), 3565. C ruz ’ s de fe rre d judgm e nt the re fore is a

“ c o nvic tion” unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1182(a )(2)(A) re n de ring him ine ligiblefor
2c anc e lla

tion of re m ova l
. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1229b(b)(1)(C ). 2. W ithholding of R

e m o va l: Substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s de n ia l of withholding unde

r 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)(3) be c a use C ruzdid not e sta

blish tha t he
wa s a m e m be r of a c o gniz a ble pa rtic u la r soc ia l group. C ruz argue s tha t he will be pe rse c ute d in M e xic o ba s e d on his m e m be rship in two groups: (1) pe ople who have ha d fam ily

m e m be rs kille d

by c arte ls in M e xic o, or (2) pe ople who ha ve de fie d c arte ls. B ut the B IA c onc lude d tha t C ruz fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t the se groups sa tisfie d the pa

rtic ula rity or soc i a l distinc tion re quire m e n ts. C ruzproduc e d littlee v ide n c e tha

t soc ie ty vie ws e ithe r group a s soc i a lly distinc t. Se e Diaz-Torre s
v . Barr , 963 F.3d 976, 980–81 (9th C i r. 2020). At le a st whe re the pe titione r doe s not produc e e vide nc e a s to how soc ie ty vie ws the se groups, we have re je c te d sim ila r groups a s la c king soc ia l distinc tion a n d/or pa rtic ula rity
. Se e , e .g. , Santos-Ponc e v . W

ilk inson , 987 F.3d 886, 890 (9th C ir. 2021) (re je c ting “ m inor C hristia n m a le s who opposega

ng m e m be rship” on the se ba se s ). 3. C AT Prote c tion: Substa ntia l e vide nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s de nia l of C AT prote c tion be c a

use C ruz did not show tha t “ e a c h ste p in the hy

pothe tic a l
c ha in of e ve n ts [le a ding to his torture ] is m ore like l y tha n not to oc c ur.” Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2). In the e arly 1990s, whe n C ruz ’ s fam ily re s iste d the de m ands of the we a lthy

Lope z fam ily

a ffilia te d with theSina loa

c arte l , the
3Lope z e s m

urde re d his c ousin M arc o. Afte r C ruz ’ s brothe r Arm ando wa s a c c use d of ste a ling som e of the Lope z e s’ c ows, he fle d a n d wa s ne ve r he ard from

a ga in. C ruz him se lf wa s thre a te ne d with de ath. C ruz c am e to the Unite d State s in 1996. Although C ruz pre se nte d e vide nc e tha t c arte l m e m

be rs ge ne ra lly

m a inta in longsta nding grudge s, he provide d no e vide nc e tha t the c arte l m e m

be rs in his town like ly now be ar a

grudge towa

rd him
. Se e De lgado-Ortiz v. Holde r , 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th C ir. 2010) (e xpla ining tha t “ ge ne ra liz e d e vide nc e of viole n c e ” in a
c ountry is insuffic ie nt to e sta

blish e ligibility

for C AT prote c tion). C ruz ’ s siste r live s two hours a

way from the ir hom e town a

nd she ha s not be e n ha

rm e d. C ruz and his siste r do not disc uss the c arte ls, so heha s littlespe c ific inform ation a bout the situa tion in the

town. Substa

n t ia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha t C ruz did not show it is m ore like ly tha n not tha t the c arte l m e m

be rs will loc ate him , re c ogniz e him , re m e m b e r that he oppose d

the c arte l, a

nd torture or kill him
. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

4