NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SERGIO BRAVO-FLORES, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-72979 

Agency No. A201-184-715 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 13, 2018**

Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Sergio Bravo-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for relief and ordering 

removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial 

 

* 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 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 20 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-72979 

evidence the agency’s factual determinations, and we review de novo questions of 

law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the 

petition for review.

The agency did not err in finding Bravo-Flores ineligible for cancellation of 

removal, where he admitted to having a firearms-related conviction. See 8 U.S.C. 

§§ 1229b(b)(1)(C), 1227(a)(2)(c); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d); Rendon v. Mukasey, 520 

F.3d 967, 973 (9th Cir. 2008) (where “the evidence indicates that one or more of 

the grounds for mandatory denial of the application for relief may apply, the alien 

shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that such 

grounds do not apply”).

Bravo-Flores has not challenged the agency’s denial of asylum as untimely 

filed. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013)

(failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of 

removal, where Bravo-Flores failed to show it is more likely than not that he would 

be persecuted on account of a protected ground in Mexico. See Delgado-Ortiz v. 

Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant must generally show 

an individualized, rather than a generalized, risk of persecution to establish 

eligibility for asylum or withholding; “returning Mexicans from the United States” 

is too broad to qualify as a cognizable social group). We are not persuaded by 
3 15-72979 

Bravo-Flores’s contention that “returning Mexican[s] from the United States with 

U[.]S[.] born children that are less than fluent in Spanish” is more particular than 

the social group which we rejected in Delgado-Ortiz. See id. at 1152 (contention 

that members of the proposed social group may be “easily identified” does not 

address the breadth of the proposed group).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of relief under the 

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), where Bravo-Flores failed to show it was 

more likely than not that a government official in Mexico would torture him or 

consent or acquiesce to his torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); Delgado-Ortiz, 

600 F.3d at 1152.

The record does not support Bravo-Flores’s contentions that the agency 

ignored his evidence or arguments, failed to consider his eligibility for relief, or 

failed to explain its reasoning. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th 

Cir. 2010) (the agency must consider the issues raised and express its decision “in 

terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and 

thought and not merely reacted” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.