United States v. 2020-12-08 | 18-72447 | IGNACIO GALVAN-INCLAN V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IGNACIO GALVAN-INCLAN,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 18-72447

Agency No. A087-991-730

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 2, 2020
**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Ignacio Galvan-Inclan, 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 decision denying his application for withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the legal question
of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that

*
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

DEC 8 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 18-72447
deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and
regulations. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We
deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in concluding that Galvan-Inclan did not establish
membership in 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 society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26
I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also 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, Galvan-Inclan’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
Galvan-Inclan’s request to remand for termination of proceedings, set forth
in his opening brief, is denied. See Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th

3 18-72447
Cir. 2020) (omission of certain information from a notice to appear can be cured
for jurisdictional purposes by later hearing notice).
As stated in the court’s September 18, 2018 order, the temporary stay of
removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.