Sergio Romero Pedroza v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SERGIO ROMERO PEDROZA,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73903
Agency No. A205-719-470
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 7, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges
Sergio Romero Pedroza (“Pedroza”), a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his
application for withholding of removal and protection 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
AUG 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 interpretation of the governing statutes
and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Pedroza’s asylum
claim was time-barred; in any event, Pedroza does not contest the IJ’s denial of his
asylum claim on appeal, so he waives review of this issue. See Martinez-Serrano
v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and
argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, his asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Pedroza’s withholding of
removal claim. Santos-Perez claims he will be persecuted as a member of a social
group consisting of “Mexicans who have obviously recently returned from the
United States,” but the BIA did not err in finding that this is not a cognizable social
group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to
demonstrate membership in a particular 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA
2014))).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Pedroza failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --