NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PASCUAL DE LA LUZ GALVEZ,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 18

- 71066 Agency No. A089

- 268

- 316

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 31, 2023 * * Seattle, Washington Before: NGUYEN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and PREGERSON, ** * District Judge.
Pascual de la Luz Galvez petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing an appeal from the decision of an Immigration

* 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 witho ut oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Dean D. Pregerson, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

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

Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CA T”)

. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
1. Even assuming that Petitioner exhausted his argument regarding a defect in the Notice to Appear (“NTA”), the NTA here was sufficient to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court. United States v. Bastide

- Hernandez , 39 F.4th 1187, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc).
2. Petitioner’s voluntary departure argument was not exhausted before the BIA.
See Zara v. Ashcroft , 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir. 2004)

. In any event , any error regarding voluntary departure was harmless. See Zamorano v. Garland , 2 F.4th 1213, 1228 (9th Cir. 2021)

. 3. Petitioner’s arguments as to untimeliness fail were also not exhausted

. See Abebe v. Mukasey , 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir. 2009) . Contrary to Petitioner’s characterization, the BIA did not address untimeliness on the merits. Furthermore, this Court has expressly rejected the argument that ignorance of filing requirements constitutes an “extraordinary circumstance” warranting an e xception to the one

year filing deadline. Alquijay v. Garland , 40 F.4th 1099, 1103

- 04 (9th Cir. 2022).
Petitioner’s citation to Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d at 676 n.4 (9th Cir. 2004) , is inapt, as Petitioner was represented by counsel throughout all pro ceedings.
4. Substantial evidence support ed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.3

See Ruiz

- Colmenares v. Garland , 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022) . Petitioner’s only explanation for the material inconsistencies in the record was that his own

cou nsel may have misunderstood him, or that there may have been a transcription error. On such a record, and given the centrality of the inconsistent details, we cannot conclude that a reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to accept Petitioner’s explanat ions. See Dong v. Garland , 50 F.4th 1291, 1296 (9th Cir. 2022) ; Barseghyan v. Garland , 39 F.4th 1138, 1143 (9th Cir. 2022)

. 5. We review de novo w hether a group qualifies as a “particular social group” for purposes of withholding of removal. Perdomo v. Holder , 611 F.3d 662, 665 (9th Cir. 2010). We have repeatedly concluded that groups similar to that put forth by Petitioner, “ adult male recent Mexican nonconsensual returnees, implied or
otherwise ,” are too broad to be cognizable. See , e.g. , Delgado

- Ortiz v. Holder , 600 F.3d 1148, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010) ; Jimenez

- Ornelas v. Rosen , 843 F. App ’ x 33, 36 (9th Cir. 2021) ; Paniagua

- Baltazar v. Wilkinson , 838 F. App ’ x 284 , 284 (9th Cir.
2021 )

. We reject Petitioner’s assertion that this Court must, sua sponte, formulate and evaluate alternative social groups in addition to that identified by Petitioner.
6. W hether a petitioner is likely to be harmed if removed from the United States is a question of fact, which we review for substantial evidence. Rido re v. Holder , 696 F.3d 907, 911, 915 (9th Cir. 2012) . An adverse credibility determination in the asylum or withholding context is not necessarily dispositive of4

a CAT claim, as independent evidence may establish a n applicant’s eligibility for
CAT relief. Kamalthas v. INS , 251 F.3d 1279 , 1284 (9th Cir. 2001 ). Absent such evidence, however, a CAT claim is properly rejected where, as here, it is based solely upon an applicant’s non - credible statements. See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003 ).
PETITION DENIED.