Mario Peralta Reyes v. Jefferson Sessions

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 17 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIO PERALTA REYES, No. 15-71189
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-282-926
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and SMITH,*** Chief District
Judge.
*
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 William E. Smith, Chief United States District Judge
for the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.
Mario Peralta-Reyes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”) 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 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review questions of law de novo, Retuta v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir.
2010), and denial of withholding of removal and protection under CAT for
substantial evidence, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We
deny the petition.
Peralta-Reyes argues he is eligible for withholding of removal based on
membership in the proposed particular social group “Americanized Mexicans” or
“pochos.” We have previously held that such a group does not meet the legal
requirements for a particular social group under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). See
Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228–29 (9th Cir. 2016) (denying
withholding of removal because petitioners’ proposed group, “imputed wealthy
Americans,” was not cognizable as a particular social group); Delgado-Ortiz v.
Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151–52 (9th Cir. 2010) (denying withholding of removal
because “[p]etitioners’ proposed social group, ‘returning Mexicans from the
United States,’ . . . is too broad to qualify as a cognizable social group”). The BIA
properly denied Peralta-Reyes’s withholding of removal claim.
2
With respect to the CAT claim, Peralta-Reyes admits he has returned to
Mexico multiple times without harm and that his family has remained in Mexico
without harm. He has not shown he is any more likely to be a victim of violence or
crime than the populace of Mexico as a whole. Substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s denial of Peralta-Reyes’s CAT claim. See Ramirez-Munoz, 816 F.3d at
1230 (“Where Petitioners have not shown they are any more likely to be victims of
violence and crimes than the populace as a whole in Mexico, they have failed to
carry their burden.”); Delgado-Ortiz, 600 F.3d at 1152 (“Petitioners’ generalized
evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is not particular to Petitioners and is
insufficient to meet th[e] standard [for relief under CAT].”).
We have considered Peralta-Reyes’s other arguments and find them to be
without merit. The petition for review is DENIED.
3