Wilfredo Antonio Medina- Alarcon v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILFREDO ANTONIO MEDINA-
ALARCON,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72452
Agency No. A094-830-744
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Wilfredo Antonio Medina-Alarcon, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
application for withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
* 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 14 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 11-72452
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163,
1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s
determination of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371
F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
We reject Medina-Alarcon’s challenge to the BIA’s determination that his
proposed social group is not cognizable, because the social group he proposed did
not meet the immutable characteristic, particularity, or social distinction
requirements. 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))). Thus, his withholding of removal claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --