Court Opinion

ID: 9882259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 17:00:52.16251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:58.585972
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        OCT 5 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARIBERTO ROQUE-SANCHEZ,                         No. 22-487
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A205-412-360
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted October 3, 2023**
                               Las Vegas, Nevada

Before: RAWLINSON and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER, District
Judge.***

      Ariberto Roque-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

      *
             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 Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for
the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
                                           1
from the immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of

removal. Whether a proposed particular social group is cognizable for the purpose

of establishing eligibility for withholding of removal is a legal question reviewed

de novo. See, e.g., Aguilar-Osorio v. Garland, 991 F.3d 997, 999 (9th Cir. 2021)

(per curiam). But the subsidiary findings as to whether a proposed particular social

group is particular and socially distinct are reviewed for substantial evidence. See,

e.g., Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2020). As the parties

are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the petition for

review.

      1. The BIA did not err in holding that “young men returning from the

United States to Mexico” was not a cognizable particular social group. Substantial

evidence supports the BIA’s finding that this proposed particular social group is

neither particular nor socially distinct.

      A cognizable particular social group must be “(1) composed of members

who share a common immutable characteristic; (2) defined with particularity; and

(3) socially distinct within the society in question.” Akosung v. Barr, 970 F.3d

1095, 1103 (9th Cir. 2020). “[T]he focus of the particularity requirement is

whether the group is discrete or is, instead, amorphous.” Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d

1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). The inquiry into social distinction

“ordinarily demand[s] some type of corroborative, objective evidence” showing

                                            2                                22-487
that “a group exists and is perceived as ‘distinct’ or ‘other’ in a particular society.”

Diaz-Torres v. Barr, 963 F.3d 976, 981–82 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Pirir-Boc v.

Holder, 750 F.3d 1077, 1084 (9th Cir. 2014)).

      Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that “young men

returning from the United States to Mexico” is “too amorphous regarding age to

meet the particularity requirement.” The descriptor “young” does not “provide a

clear benchmark for determining who falls within the group.” Nguyen v. Barr, 983

F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Moreover, Roque-Sanchez did

not meet his burden of producing “corroborative, objective evidence” to compel

finding that Mexican society perceives “young men returning from the United

States to Mexico” as “other.” Diaz-Torres, 963 F.3d at 981–82.

      2. The BIA complied with our instructions on remand to consider in a

“case-by-case” manner the “age and gender characteristics” of Roque-Sanchez’s

proposed particular social group. Roque-Sanchez v. Barr, 804 F. App’x 600, 601

(9th Cir. 2020) (unpublished) (citing Pirir-Boc, 750 F.3d at 1084). The BIA

recognized that Roque-Sanchez’s proposed group was “further defined” than the

group of “returning Mexicans from the United States” that had been rejected in

Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151–52 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam), the

case that was the basis of its previous order. But it looked to analogous case law to

conclude that, even narrowed as such, the proposed particular social group was not

                                          3                                     22-487
cognizable.

      The BIA “need not discuss each piece of evidence in asylum and

withholding of removal claims” so long as it conducts a “case-specific analysis.”

Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1182–83 (9th Cir. 2021). The BIA

acknowledged its mandate from our court. The BIA also referenced and responded

to Roque-Sanchez’s argument in his remand brief distinguishing his case from

Delgado-Ortiz. Therefore, the BIA conducted an adequate inquiry on remand.

      3. The BIA order did not deny Roque-Sanchez due process. “Due process

and this court’s precedent require a minimum degree of clarity in dispositive

reasoning and in the treatment of a properly raised argument.” Delgado v. Holder,

648 F.3d 1095, 1107 (9th Cir. 2011). “To prevail on a due process challenge to

deportation proceedings, [one] must show error and substantial prejudice.” Lata v.

INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000). A showing of prejudice requires proof

that “the outcome of the proceeding may have been affected by the alleged

violation.” Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000).

      Roque-Sanchez has not proven such a violation. The BIA acknowledged its

instructions on remand, applied the proper legal standard, and stated the reasons

for its decision. Additionally, even assuming error, Roque-Sanchez has not proven

prejudice because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that his

proposed group of “young men returning from the United States to Mexico” is

                                        4                                   22-487
neither particular nor socially distinct and thus not cognizable.

      The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         5                             22-487