Reinaldo Ramos-De Freitas v. Jefferson Sessions, III ( 2018 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REINALDO RAMOS-DE FREITAS, No. 15-73522
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-991-856
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 11, 2018**
San Francisco, California
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Reinaldo Ramos-de Freitas (“Ramos”), a native and citizen of Brazil,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of withholding of
removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) and protection under the United Nations
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo. Retuta v. Holder, 591 F.3d
1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2010). We review for substantial evidence the determination
that Ramos is not eligible for withholding of removal or CAT relief. Shrestha v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039, 1049 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the determination that Ramos is not
eligible for withholding of removal. Ramos claims membership in a group of
individuals who are perceived to be of a poor class but have inserted themselves
into a prominent or wealthy family either by way of a quasi-marital relationship or
by fathering the child of a family member. Neither of these proposed groups have
the characteristics required to establish a cognizable social group. See Reyes v.
Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that “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 In re M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (B.I.A.
2014))), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 736 (2018); Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d
1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that “imputed wealthy Americans” was not
sufficiently particular so as to constitute a “particular social group” (citing
Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1090–91 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc))).
2. Substantial evidence supports the denial of the CAT claim. Ramos
-2-
has not met the burden of proving that it is more likely than not that he will be
tortured upon return to Brazil by or with the acquiescence of the government.
Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014); 8 C.F.R. §
208.18(a)(7)
PETITION DENIED.
-3-