Carlos Miguel Ramirez-Valdez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS MIGUEL RAMIREZ-VALDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-72276
19-72230
Agency No. A088-967-691
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 22, 2023 **
San Francisco, California
Before: FRIEDLAND, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Miguel Ramirez-Valdez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the
decision of an immigration judge denying his application for withholding of
removal (No. 18-72276), as well as for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to
* 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
FEB 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-72276
reopen removal proceedings (No. 19-72230). We deny the petitions.
1. The BIA did not err in denying his application for withholding of
removal on the ground that the proposed particular social group is not cognizable.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusions that the proposed social group
is not defined with sufficient particularity and is not socially distinct. See Conde
Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2020). The record does not
compel a contrary conclusion. See Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081,
1089-91 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Because this issue is dispositive of Ramirez-
Valdez’s withholding of removal claim, we need not reach his other arguments.
See Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 1104 (9th Cir. 2020).
2. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramirez-Valdez’s
motion to reopen because Ramirez-Valdez did not establish prima facie eligibility
for cancellation of removal. See Garcia v. Holder, 621 F.3d 906, 912 (9th Cir.
2010); 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). The BIA reasonably concluded that Ramirez-
Valdez’s son’s birth certificate and school schedule did not show how his removal
would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a U.S. citizen
relative. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). This did not constitute impermissible
factfinding by the BIA; the BIA is required to determine whether the evidence
before it presents a prima facie case for eligibility. See Garcia, 621 F.3d at 912.
Because this is dispositive of Ramirez-Valdez’s motion to reopen, we need not

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-72276
reach his other arguments. See INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992).
Petitions DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --