Court Opinion

ID: 9372432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-21 17:00:27.293079+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:35.474151
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                        FEB 21 2023
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                     U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDRES URBAN MIGUEL,                             No.   17-70211

                  Petitioner,                    Agency No. A099-017-229

     v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                  Respondent.

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

                            Submitted February 15, 2023**
                                Seattle, Washington

Before: W. FLETCHER and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and LIBURDI,***
District Judge.

          Andres Urban Miguel petitions the court to review a Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal of an Immigration Judge decision denying

*
 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).
***
   The Honorable Michael T. Liburdi, United States District Judge for the District
of Arizona, sitting by designation.
him asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and Naturalization

Act and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163,

1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s

determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371

F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review factual findings for substantial evidence.

Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184–85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition

for review.

      The BIA did not err in concluding that Urban Miguel did not establish

membership in a cognizable social group because the social groups he proposed—

future landowners and Mexican males living in rural areas controlled by drug

cartels—are too broad. See Diaz-Torres v. Barr, 963 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2020)

(“The BIA has interpreted [particular social group] to include three components: (1)

a group ‘composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic’; (2)

‘defined with particularity’; and (3) ‘socially distinct within the society in

question.’” (quoting Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016))); see also

Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059–60 (9th Cir. 2019) (concluding Petitioner’s

proposed particular social group to be “too broad to qualify as a cognizable

‘particular social group’” (quotation omitted)).

                                          2
       Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Urban Miguel

failed to establish a nexus between the harm he suffered and a protected ground. See

Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An [applicant’s] desire to

be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang

members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Thus, Urban Miguel’s asylum

claim fails.

       Because Urban Miguel failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he did not

establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190.

       Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Urban Miguel failed to establish that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured

by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican government. See Delgado-

Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of

violence and crime was not particular to petitioner and insufficient to establish CAT

eligibility).

       PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                           3