Ricardo Lopez-Zamarripa v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO LOPEZ-ZAMARRIPA,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 14-74048
Agency No. A089-812-174
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ricardo Lopez-Zamarripa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
* 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).
FILED
OCT 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-74048
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,
Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that
deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and
regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the
petition for review.
The agency did not err in finding that Lopez-Zamarripa failed to establish
membership in a cognizable social group. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d
1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding “imputed wealthy Americans” returning
to Mexico did not constitute a particular social group); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder,
600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding “returning Mexicans from the
United States” did not constitute a particular social group). Thus, Lopez-
Zamarripa’s withholding of removal claim fails.
As to his CAT claim, we reject Lopez-Zamarripa’s due process contention
regarding the BIA’s standard of review because he did not show error. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due
process claim); Ridore v. Holder, 696 F.3d 907, 918-19 (9th Cir. 2012) (the BIA
reviews for clear error the IJ’s determination of whether an applicant is likely to be
subject to torture). Lopez-Zamarripa does not otherwise challenge the agency’s

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-74048
denial of CAT. Thus, we deny the petition for review as to his CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --