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

AHAM ALVAR

ADOFAVELA, Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 16-72374 Age n c y No. A095-662-816
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 itte d August 7, 2019 ** B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , M c KEOW N a nd HAW KINS, C i rc uit Judge s. Franc isc o Abra

ham Alva ra do-Fave la , a

native and c itiz e n of M e xic o , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igrations Appe a ls’ (B IA) orde r dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igrat ion judge ’ s (IJ) de c i sion de ny ing his a pplic ations for 

# FIL ED AUG 28 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).a sy lum , withholding of rem ova l, a n d re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture (C AT). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we de ny

the pe t ition. Whe the r a

group c onstitute s a “ pa

rtic ula r soc ia l group” is a

que stion of la

w that we re vie w de novo. Pe rdomo v . Holde r , 611 F.3d 662, 665 (9th C ir. 2010). W e re vie wfor substa

ntia l e vide nc e the a g e nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings. Ze haty ev . Gonzale s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th C ir. 2006). The B IA did not e rr in its c onc lusion tha t Alva ra do-Fave la

fa ile d to e sta

blish
m e m b e rship in a

c ogniz a ble soc ia l group. Se e Re

y e s v . Ly nc h , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th C ir. 2016) (in orde r to de m onstra te m e m be rship in a

pa rtic ula r group,

“ [t] he a pplic ant m

ust ‘ e sta blish tha t the group is (1) c o m

pose d of m e m

b e rs who sha re a c om m o n im m uta ble c ha ra c te ristic , (2) de fine d with pa rtic ula rity , a n d (3)
soc i a lly distinc t within the

soc ie ty in que stion’ ” (quoting Matte r of M-E-V-G- , 26 I. & N. De c . 227, 237 (B IA 2014))); Barbosa v . Barr , 926 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th C ir. 2019) (finding tha

t individuals re turning to M e xic o from the Unite d State s

2who a

re be lie ve d t o be we a lthy

doe s not c onstitute

a pa rtic ula r soc ia l group). Thus, Alva

ra do-Fave la ’ s a sy lum

an d withholding of re

m o va l c la im s fa i l. 1 Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t Alva ra do-Fave la did not e sta

blish tha t he is m ore like ly

tha n not to betorture d by

or with the
c onse nt or a c quie s c e nc e of the gove rnm e nt if re turne d to M e xic o. Se eAde n v . Holde r , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th C ir. 2009); Garc ia-Milian v

. Holde r , 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th C ir. 2014) (c onc luding tha t pe titione r did not e sta

blish the
ne c e ssa ry “ sta te a c tion” for C AT re lie f). Thus, Alva ra do-Fave la ’ s C AT c la im fa ils. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 Our c onc l usion is not affe c te d by the diffe ring ne xus sta

nda rds a pplic a ble to a s y lum and withholding of re

m ova l c la im s. C

f. Barajas-Romero v . Ly nc h , 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th C ir. 2017) (disc ussing Ze tino v . Holde r having dra

wn no distinc tion be twe e n the sta nda rds whe re the re wa s no ne xus a t a l l to a prote c te d ground). 3