Jorge Moreno Ramirez v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 15 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE GUADALUPE MORENO No. 15-72144
RAMIREZ,
Agency No. A035-834-241
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 14, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: BERZON, TALLMAN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Jorge Guadalupe Moreno Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the
immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of
*
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).
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
1. Our court has already upheld the BIA’s denial of Moreno’s
application for CAT protection, see Ramirez v. Holder, 586 F. App’x 272 (9th Cir.
2014) (unpublished), and, therefore, he is foreclosed from relitigating this issue,
see In re Duncan, 713 F.2d 538, 541 (9th Cir. 1983). Moreover, as we previously
held, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Moreno is not
eligible for CAT protection because he failed to establish that it is more likely than
not that he will be tortured by, or with the consent or acquiescence of, the Mexican
government. See Ramirez, 586 F. App’x at 272 (citing Silaya v. Mukasey, 524
F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008)).
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Moreno
cannot demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on account of his family
ties. Although Moreno asserts that his uncle, Telesforo Ramirez, was shot by gang
members trying to send “a message” to his other uncle, Valentin Ramirez, who
works as an undercover police officer in Mexico, Moreno only speculates as to
whether the shooting was based on Telesforo’s family ties to Valentin. Further,
this event occurred over twenty-four years ago, Valentin and his family continue to
reside in Mexico without harm, and Moreno has since voluntarily visited the same
town where Telesforo was shot without harm.
2
3. The BIA did not err in determining that Moreno’s proposed social
group of “previous U.S. residents” is not cognizable within the meaning of 8
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). First, this proposed group lacks the requisite particularity
because it is not clear how long an individual must reside in the United States to be
considered a “previous U.S. resident,” or how long after returning to Mexico an
individual would still be considered part of this group. Additionally, this group
may include people of all ages who are returning for various reasons. Thus, the
proposed group lacks “delimitable boundaries.” Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707
F.3d 1081, 1090–91 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Moreno has not presented evidence
that compels a contrary conclusion, and we have rejected similarly construed
groups as being defined too broadly. See, e.g., Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053,
1059–60 (9th Cir. 2019). Second, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding
that this proposed group lacks the requisite social distinction because Moreno did
not cite to any record evidence that supports, much less compels, the finding that
this group is perceived by Mexican society as socially distinct. See Matter of W-G-
R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208, 217–18 (BIA 2014).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3