Luis Enrique Ramirez Betancurd v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS ENRIQUE RAMIREZ
BETANCURD,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-70489
Agency No. A202-083-120
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 1, 2022**
Before: FRIEDLAND, SANCHEZ, and H. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Luis Enrique Ramirez Betancurd, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for
* 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
JUN 30 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-70489
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”).
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 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
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Id. at 1241. We
deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in concluding that Ramirez Betancurd did not
establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch,
842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a
particular social 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 Barrios v.
Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-55 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding that young Guatemalan
men who resist gang recruitment did not constitute a particular social group),
abrogated in part on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081,
1093 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Thus, Ramirez Betancurd’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-70489
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Ramirez Betancurd 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
Guatemala. Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --