Court Opinion

ID: 9384654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-04 17:00:49.643772+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:55.459244
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-581, 04/04/2023, DktEntry: 25.1, Page 1 of 4

                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          APR 4 2023
                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE JIMENEZ CENTENO,                          No. 22-581

              Petitioner,                      Agency No.        A216-433-023

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

              Respondent.

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

                            Submitted March 30, 2023**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: M. SMITH and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and RODRIGUEZ,*** District
Judge.

       *
             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 Xavier Rodriguez, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.

                                       1
                Case: 22-581, 04/04/2023, DktEntry: 25.1, Page 2 of 4

      Petitioner Jose Jimenez Centeno, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this

Court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming

the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of Petitioner’s applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”).

      This Court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and will review the BIA’s

factual findings for substantial evidence and any legal questions de novo. Bringas-

Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017). Under the substantial

evidence standard, “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any

reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(4)(B). Where, as here, “the BIA has reviewed the IJ’s decision and

incorporated portions of it as its own, we treat the incorporated parts of the IJ’s

decision as the BIA’s.” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2021)

(citing Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2002)). As the parties

are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. This petition is denied.

      As an initial matter, the IJ’s findings that Petitioner was ineligible for asylum

or relief under CAT are not properly before this Court.            Petitioner did not

meaningfully challenge these findings before the BIA nor before this Court; thus,

they are waived on appeal. Gonzalez-Castillo v. Garland, 47 F.4th 971, 980-81 (9th

Cir. 2022).

                                       2
                Case: 22-581, 04/04/2023, DktEntry: 25.1, Page 3 of 4

      Petitioner challenges the IJ and BIA’s finding that he is ineligible for

withholding of removal. He contends that he established a well-founded fear of

future persecution based on his membership in four particular social groups: (1)

Petitioner’s nuclear family; (2) Mexican men with immediate relatives who served

in the military; (3) Mexican men with immediate relatives involved in direct

confrontation with the Mexican Drug Cartel; and (4) Mexican men being persecuted

by the Mexican Drug Cartel.

      As a matter of law in this Circuit, families are the “quintessential” social

group. Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 910 (9th Cir. 2018). However, the IJ

found, and the BIA affirmed, that the three latter groups were not cognizable.

Without meaningful analysis, the IJ dismissed Petitioner’s proposed groups of

“Mexican men with immediate relatives who served in the military” and “Mexican

men with immediate relatives involved in direct confrontation with the Mexican

Drug Cartel” as lacking particularity and distinction. The IJ rejected Petitioner’s

proposed group of “Mexican men being persecuted by the Mexican Drug Cartel,”

by relying on the “similarly situated or analogous cases” of Santos-Lemus v.

Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2008), Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849 (9th. Cir.

2009), and Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855 (9th Cir. 2009), all of which held

that similar proposed groups were not cognizable.

                                      3
                Case: 22-581, 04/04/2023, DktEntry: 25.1, Page 4 of 4

      In making these findings, the IJ did not reference or assess whether

Petitioner’s proffered exhibits, namely news articles and country conditions reports,

contradicted these determinations. Without more, this cursory analysis was in error.

Neither the IJ nor the BIA engaged in the “rigorous analysis” required to properly

assess Petitioner’s proposed social groups. See Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d

1070, 1077 (9th Cir. 2020).

      Nonetheless, this error was harmless because substantial evidence supports

the IJ’s finding that there was no nexus between Petitioner’s fear of future harm and

his membership in any of the four groups. Petitioner stated on the record that he is

unaware of any “specific threats” against himself or his family. His brother, sisters,

and mother have not been harassed by the cartel, despite living in the same town as

the cartel. Ultimately, the IJ determined that there were no specific, outstanding

threats against Petitioner, much less any threats “as related to his brother, his

relationship to his brother, or any other family members.” This Court has reviewed

the record and cannot find evidence compelling a contrary conclusion. Thus, the

IJ’s findings are conclusive. Given the lack of any nexus to Petitioner’s proposed

social groups, he failed to establish his eligibility for withholding of removal.

      THE PETITION IS DENIED.

                                        4