Court Opinion

ID: 9405513
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 19:00:37.363035+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:22.584968
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                                                                          JUN 28 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE B. MONTUFAR ORANTES,                        No.   21-1383

             Petitioner,                         Agency No.
                                                 A071-584-496
 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney                     MEMORANDUM*
General

             Respondent.

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

                             Submitted June 15, 2023**
                               Pasadena, California

Before: BYBEE and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and VITALIANO,*** District
Judge.

      Jose B. Montufar Orantes is a native and citizen of Guatemala who entered

      *
             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 Eric N. Vitaliano, Senior United States District Judge
for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
the United States without inspection in 1990. He petitions for review of a decision

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an order

of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his applications for cancellation of

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

Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction to review BIA decisions under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252, except that pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), we lack jurisdiction to

review discretionary determination of the BIA to deny cancellation of removal

based on hardship. We review factual findings adopted by the BIA for substantial

evidence, while we review its legal conclusions de novo. Xochihua-Jaimes v.

Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020).

      Montufar Orantes argues he is eligible for withholding of removal because

he showed that he would likely suffer future persecution based on his membership

in the particular social group (“PSG”) “American families of Guatemalan descent.”

On appeal to the BIA, petitioner argued that the IJ erred in finding that his

proffered group is not a cognizable PSG. But the BIA correctly concluded that this

group fails to exhibit the requisite particularity and social distinction necessary to

be a legally cognizable group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1138–40 (9th

Cir. 2016); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1150–52 (9th Cir. 2010).

       With regard to his claim for CAT protection, Montufar Orantes proffered no

evidence beyond general reports of violence in Guatemala to support his claim.

                                           2
While country conditions evidence alone can suffice to warrant CAT protection,

the country conditions evidence petitioner presented demonstrated no

particularized risk to him and does not compel the conclusion that he would be

more likely than not to be tortured if returned to Guatemala. See Alphonsus v.

Holder, 705 F.3d 1031, 1049 (9th Cir. 2013), abrogation on other grounds

recognized by Guerrero v. Whitaker, 908 F.3d 541, 544 (9th Cir. 2018).

      Last, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision denying Montufar

Orantes’ application for cancellation of removal. Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d

642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that “absent a colorable legal or constitutional

claim, [the court] lack[s] jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary

determination that an alien failed to prove that removal would result in exceptional

and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a

citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent

residence”). Petitioner raises no colorable constitutional claim, as his only

objections address the BIA’s weighing of the evidence. See Martinez-Rosas v.

Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929–30 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, this claim is

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

      PETITION DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART.

                                          3