Court Opinion

ID: 9389444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 17:01:46.111878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:27.025810
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       APR 25 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FEDERICO SANCHEZ-VELASQUEZ,                     No.    20-73701
AKA Hugo Escobar,
                                                Agency No. A201-177-379
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before:      CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Federico Sanchez-Velasquez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions

pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing

his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) decision denying his applications

for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

      *
             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).
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de

novo the legal question of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except

to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing

statutes and regulations. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir.

2020). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Id. at

1241. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to terminate.

Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for

review.

      Because Sanchez-Velasquez does not contest the BIA’s determinations that

he did not challenge the IJ’s determinations that asylum was time-barred, his past

harm did not rise to the level of persecution, and a proposed particular social group

based on resistance to recruitment was not cognizable, we do not address these

issues. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).

      The BIA did not err in concluding that Sanchez-Velasquez failed to establish

membership in a cognizable particular social group based on being a returnee. See

Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (to demonstrate membership

in a particular social group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1)

composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined

with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting

                                           2                                    20-73701
Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also Conde

Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1243 (record lacked evidence of social distinction).

      Thus, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

      Because Sanchez-Velasquez does not contest the BIA’s determination that

he did not challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT protection, we do not address it. See

Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.

      The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Sanchez-Velasquez’s

motion to terminate. See United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188,

1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (lack of hearing information in notice to appear

does not deprive immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction, and 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.14(a) is satisfied when later notice provides hearing information).

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

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         3                                   20-73701