Jorge Alcala-Sanchez v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE ALCALA-SANCHEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-71754
Agency No. A200-827-036
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.
Jorge Alcala-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing Alcala-Sanchez’s
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Alcala-Sanchez’s
application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition.
* 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 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-71754
We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163,
1166 (9th Cir. 2008), and we review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006).
The BIA did not err in finding that Alcala-Sanchez 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 Barbosa v. Barr, 919 F.3d 1169,
1175 (9th Cir. 2019) (applying case law in which similar social groups were
proposed and finding that individuals returning to Mexico from the United States
who are believed to be wealthy does not constitute a particular social group).
Thus, Alcala-Sanchez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --