Court Opinion

ID: 9893001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 19:00:46.45745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:52:51.462341
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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

CARLOS MARES,                                   No. 22-1225
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A092-986-681
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                           Submitted October 19, 2023**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: BEA, CHRISTEN and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

      Carlos Mares (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his

appeal of the denial by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) of his applications for

      *
             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).
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We deny the petition.

      Where the BIA has explicitly affirmed and adopted portions of the IJ’s

findings and cited Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (B.I.A. 1994), we

review those portions of the IJ’s decision as though it were the BIA’s. Chuen Piu

Kwong v. Holder, 671 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2011); Santiago-Rodriguez v.

Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011). We review legal conclusions de novo

and factual findings for substantial evidence. Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 1028–

29 (9th Cir. 2011).

      Petitioner did not raise the particular social group of “Mexicans deported

from the United States” in his proceedings before the IJ. Because this group was

not before the IJ, the BIA did not err in declining to consider this group for the first

time on appeal, Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019), and this

Court declines to consider this new particular social group in the first instance,

Santiago-Rodriguez, 657 F.3d at 829.

      Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Petitioner has not met his

burden to show that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to

Mexico. In the record, Petitioner only provided generalized evidence of violence

and torture in Mexico, which is insufficient to meet his burden under the CAT.

                                         2                                    22-1225
Flores-Vega v. Barr, 932 F.3d 878, 887 (9th Cir. 2019); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder,

600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                       3                                22-1225