David Jauregui-Lozano v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID JAUREGUI-LOZANO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72337
Agency No. A095-809-680
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 7, 2022 **
San Francisco, California
Before: NGUYEN and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and BOUGH, *** District
Judge.
David Jauregui-Lozano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the
* 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
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying asylum, 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. Jauregui-Lozano challenges the agency’s determination that his
untimely application rendered him statutorily ineligible for asylum on the ground
that the BIA failed to consider how changed country conditions affected his
individual case. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D) (excusing compliance with the one-
year filing requirement where the petitioner demonstrates “changed circumstances
which materially affect the applicant’s eligibility for asylum”). The BIA affirmed
the IJ’s decision, in which the IJ made an individualized assessment of the changed
country conditions to which Jauregui-Lozano testified. Alaelua v. I.N.S., 45 F.3d
1379, 1382 (9th Cir. 1995) (“When the BIA clearly incorporates the IJ’s
opinion . . . we treat the IJ’s statement of reasons as the BIA’s and review the IJ’s
decision for abuse of discretion.”). And substantial evidence supports the IJ’s
determination that rising violence and crime in Mexico did not “materially affect”
Jauregui-Lozano’s eligibility for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D).
2. Jauregui-Lozano next challenges the agency’s determination that he
failed to establish a cognizable particular social group for his withholding of

-- 2 of 4 --

3
removal claim. Reviewing the agency’s legal conclusion de novo, we agree that
Jauregui-Lozano’s proposed social group—individuals who are well dressed,
and/or individuals who speak English or speak with an American accent—is not
cognizable.1 The Ninth Circuit has previously rejected a similar proposed social
group based on perceived wealth and American mannerisms as lacking in social
visibility and particularity. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228
(9th Cir. 2016) (rejecting proposed PSG of “imputed wealthy Americans” that are
“light-skinned, fit, and have American mannerisms or accents”). Jauregui-Lozano
adduces no evidence that would compel the panel to decide differently in this case.
And substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that individuals in this
proposed category are not perceived as a discrete and distinct group in Mexico.
See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131–32, 1135 (9th Cir. 2016).
3. Finally, Jauregui-Lozano challenges the agency’s denial of his claim
for CAT relief. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
Jauregui-Lozano is not entitled to CAT relief because he has failed to show that he
is more likely than not to suffer torture in Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2).
1 Jauregui-Lozano also raises two new proposed social groups on appeal: “male
individuals unwilling to cooperate with cartel members” and “Mexican males, who
support the rule of law, refuse participation with the ‘Gang’ criminal organizations
and refuse to pay criminal organizations money.” Because Jauregui-Lozano did
not raise those particular social groups before the agency, this court lacks
jurisdiction to consider them. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677–78 (9th
Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Jauregui-Lozano offers no evidence of past torture in Mexico. The police officers’
interrogation and tasering of Jauregui-Lozano did not rise to the level of torture.
And “generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is not particular to
[Jauregui-Lozano] and is insufficient to meet [the CAT relief] standard.” See
Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010). Nor does Jauregui-
Lozano adduce evidence that the government, or any entity with the acquiescence
of the government, would torture him upon return to Mexico. See Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --