Celso Ortega-Amaya v. William Barr ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    AUG 26 2019
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                   MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    CELSO AMERIT ORTEGA-AMAYA,                        No.   14-72883
    AKA Jose Amaya, AKA Celso Ortega,
    AKA Celso Ameth Ortega, AKA Cenlo                 Agency No. A095-018-632
    Ortega,
    Petitioner,                      MEMORANDUM*
    v.
    WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted August 7, 2019**
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    Celso Amerit Ortega-Amaya (“Ortega-Amaya”), a native and citizen of El
    Salvador, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
    dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
    *
    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).
    application for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act
    (“INA”) and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
    jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
     and we deny the petition.
    Whether a group constitutes a “particular social group” is a question of law
    that we review de novo, Perdomo v. Holder, 
    611 F.3d 662
    , 665 (9th Cir. 2010), but
    we defer to the BIA’s interpretation of governing statutes and regulations,
    Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 
    371 F.3d 532
    , 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for
    substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 
    827 F.3d 1176
    , 1184 (9th Cir. 2016).
    The BIA did not err in finding that Ortega-Amaya has not established
    membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 
    842 F.3d 1125
    ,
    1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining cognizability standard) (citing Matter of M-E-G-
    V-, 26 I & N Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014)). Ortega-Amaya has not established that
    men targeted for recruitment by criminal gangs in El Salvador would be perceived
    by society or criminal gangs as a particular social group. See Santos-Lemus v.
    Mukasey, 
    542 F.3d 738
    , 744-46 (9th Cir. 2018) (men in El Salvador resisting gang
    violence is not a particular social group), abrogated in part by Henriquez-Rivas v.
    Holder, 
    707 F.3d 1081
    , 1093 (9th Cir. 2013). Ortega-Amaya also has not
    established that men returning to El Salvador after lengthy absences would be
    2
    perceived by society or criminal gangs as a particular social group. See Reyes, 842
    F.3d at 1138-40 (deportees from the United States to El Salvador is not a particular
    social group). Thus, Ortega-Amaya’s withholding of removal claim fails.
    Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief. The
    record does not compel the conclusion that Ortega-Amaya is “more likely than
    not” to be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if he
    returns to El Salvador. See 
    8 C.F.R. § 1208.16
    (c)(2); see also Aden v. Holder, 
    589 F.3d 1040
    , 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). Thus, Ortega-Amaya’s CAT claim also fails.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-72883

Filed Date: 8/26/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/26/2019