CIRINO IBANEZ-ROSAS, AKA Rosas Cirino, AKA Cirin Ibanez, AKA Cirino Ibanezrozas v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CIRINO IBANEZ-ROSAS, AKA Rosas
Cirino, AKA Cirin Ibanez, AKA Cirino
Ibanezrozas,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-70811
Agency No. A205-720-475
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Cirino Ibanez-Rosas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 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
* 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
MAY 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 19-70811
and relief 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 review de novo claims of
due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733,
738 (9th Cir. 2014). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
terminate. Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not err in concluding that Ibanez-Rosas 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 Delgado-
Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding “returning
Mexicans from the United States” did not constitute a particular social group).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Ibanez-Rosas

-- 2 of 4 --

3 19-70811
failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground,
including membership in a family-based social group. See Ayala v. Holder, 640
F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is
established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on
account of his membership in such group”); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016
(9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals
motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a
protected ground”). Ibanez-Rosas’s contentions that the agency erred in its
analysis of his claim and ignored arguments fail as unsupported by the record. See
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an
exegesis on every contention). Thus, Ibanez-Rosas’s withholding of removal
claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Ibanez-Rosas 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 Mexico. See Aden v.
Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ibanez-Rosas’s motion to
terminate proceedings where his contention that the immigration court lacked
jurisdiction over his proceedings is foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d

-- 3 of 4 --

4 19-70811
887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (“the lack of time, date, and place in the NTA sent to
[petitioner] did not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction over her case”).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --