Cirildo Ochoa Suarez v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 21 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CIRILDO OCHOA SUAREZ, No. 18-73046 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-576-034 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 8, 2020** Seattle, Washington Before: GRABER and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and KOBAYASHI,*** District Judge. Petitioner Cirildo Ochoa Suarez (“Petitioner”) is a native and citizen of Mexico. He seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final * 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 Leslie E. Kobayashi, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation. order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his request for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The BIA’s determinations on questions of law and mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed de novo; factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). “Claims of due process violations in deportation proceedings are reviewed de novo.” Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition. 1. Petitioner argues that the BIA violated his right to due process by not remanding the case to the IJ because the IJ did not articulate the particular social group as “members of the community in Michoacan who are seen to have publicly opposed the Knights Templar and been threatened as the result thereof.” Even if the group described by Petitioner constitutes a cognizable “particular social group” for the purposes of asylum or withholding of removal, substantial evidence supports the IJ and BIA’s finding that Petitioner was beaten for refusing to join the Knights Templar rather than for holding a political opinion or membership in a social group in opposition to the gang. See Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 2020) (stating standard of review applicable to denials of asylum and withholding of removal). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that no nexus existed between the harm, or threats of harm, and 2 any protected ground, including membership in a particular social group. See Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1092–93 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (stating that, in some cases, generalized opposition to gangs and gang recruitment does not constitute a particular social group); see also Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 250 (BIA 2014) (stating that a petitioner who “was subjected to one of the many different criminal activities that the gang used to sustain its criminal enterprise” in the form of recruitment, which he opposed, “did not demonstrate that he was more likely to be persecuted by the gang on ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals