Court Opinion

ID: 9374274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 18:01:24.422997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:50.621756
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS MIGUEL RAMIREZ-VALDEZ,                   No.    18-72276
                                                       19-72230
                Petitioner,
                                                Agency No. A088-967-691
 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney                    MEMORANDUM*
General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                          Submitted February 22, 2023**
                            San Francisco, California

Before: FRIEDLAND, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Carlos Miguel Ramirez-Valdez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the

decision of an immigration judge denying his application for withholding of

removal (No. 18-72276), as well as for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to

      *
             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).
reopen removal proceedings (No. 19-72230). We deny the petitions.

      1.     The BIA did not err in denying his application for withholding of

removal on the ground that the proposed particular social group is not cognizable.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusions that the proposed social group

is not defined with sufficient particularity and is not socially distinct. See Conde

Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2020). The record does not

compel a contrary conclusion. See Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081,

1089-91 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Because this issue is dispositive of Ramirez-

Valdez’s withholding of removal claim, we need not reach his other arguments.

See Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 1104 (9th Cir. 2020).

      2.     The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramirez-Valdez’s

motion to reopen because Ramirez-Valdez did not establish prima facie eligibility

for cancellation of removal. See Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir.

2010); 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). The BIA reasonably concluded that Ramirez-

Valdez’s son’s birth certificate and school schedule did not show how his removal

would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a U.S. citizen

relative. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). This did not constitute impermissible

factfinding by the BIA; the BIA is required to determine whether the evidence

before it presents a prima facie case for eligibility. See Garcia, 621 F.3d at 912.

Because this is dispositive of Ramirez-Valdez’s motion to reopen, we need not

                                          2                                    18-72276
reach his other arguments. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992).

      Petitions DENIED.

                                        3                                  18-72276