Marcelo Contreras Orosco v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARCELO CONTRERAS OROSCO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-70325
Agency No. A205-720-059
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: NGUYEN and KOH, Circuit Judges, and BOUGH,*** District Judge.
Marcelo Contreras Orosco (“Contreras”), a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
* 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 Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 13 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying withholding of removal and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing the agency’s factual findings for substantial
evidence and its legal conclusions de novo, see Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th
626, 632 (9th Cir. 2022), we deny the petition for review.
1. Reviewing the agency’s legal conclusion de novo, we agree that
Contreras’ proposed particular social group—“persons perceived wealthy . . . who
resided in the United States for significant periods of time”—is not cognizable.
See Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir. 2019). The Ninth Circuit has
previously rejected similar proposed social groups based on return to a home
country. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151–52 (9th Cir. 2010)
(finding proposed social group of “returning Mexicans from the United States” too
broad to qualify as cognizable); Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229
(9th Cir. 2016) (rejecting proposed social group of “those returning home who
appear to be American”). And substantial evidence supports the agency’s
conclusion that individuals in his proposed category are not perceived as a
particular and distinct group in Mexico. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131–
32, 1135 (9th Cir. 2016).
Moreover, there is no evidence of nexus between Contreras’ proposed
particular social group and any future harm he may face in Mexico. See 8 U.S.C. §

-- 2 of 4 --

3
1231(b)(3)(A). Contreras has never suffered harm in Mexico, so he bears the
burden of showing that membership in his proposed social group will more likely
than not cause him future harm. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(1)(iii). He knows of
no family members in Mexico who have suffered harm, nor any individuals who
were harmed when they returned to Mexico from the United States. The general
evidence of country conditions on which Contreras relies does not show that he
will be targeted based on his status as a recent returnee from the United States who
may be perceived as wealthy. Thus, he has failed to meet his burden to show it is
more likely than not that he will face future persecution based on his membership
in a particular social group. See id. at § 1208.16(b)(2).
2. Moreover, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination
that Contreras is not entitled to CAT relief because he has not shown he is more
likely than not to suffer torture in Mexico. See id. at § 1208.16(c)(2). Contreras
has not been subject to torture in the past. See id. at § 1208.16(c)(3)(i). He
adduces no record evidence supporting his claim that the government, or any entity
with the acquiescence of the government, would torture him upon return to
Mexico. See id. at § 1208.18(a)(1). Generalized evidence of violence and crime in
Mexico does not satisfy his burden. See Delgado-Ortiz, 600 F.3d at 1152 (holding
that “generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is not particular to
[p]etitioners and is insufficient to meet [the CAT relief] standard”).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --