Fredy Soriano-Cruz v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FREDY SORIANO-CRUZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 15-73557
Agency No. A087-749-906
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 9, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: IKUTA, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Fredy Soriano-Cruz seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) dismissing his administrative appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ)
FILED
MAR 11 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

order denying his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Soriano-
Cruz’s proposed social group of “Americanized Mexicans returning to Mexico” is
not cognizable because it lacks particularity and social distinction. Soriano-Cruz
failed to introduce evidence to show that the group shares an innate characteristic
or a voluntary association that would link members. See, e.g., Delgado-Ortiz v.
Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151–52 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejecting the proposed social
group “returning Mexicans from the United States”); Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816
F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (rejecting the proposed social group “those
returning home [to Mexico] who appear to be American”). Even if broad
categories of individuals (such as victims of gangs) could be deemed members of a
particularized social group under some circumstances, see Henriquez–Rivas v.
Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1092 (9th Cir. 2013), Soriano-Cruz has not provided any
evidence that he would be recognized or targeted in Mexico because of his
American traits. Therefore, the agency did not err in relying on Delgado-Ortiz v.
Holder, 600 F.3d at 1151–52, and rejecting the claim for withholding of removal.
We likewise reject Soriano-Cruz’s argument that remand is necessary in
light of Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 358 (9th Cir. 2017). Although
2

-- 2 of 3 --

the BIA erred in indicating that an alien seeking withholding of removal would
have to show that a protected ground was “one central reason” for persecution, see
id., this error was harmless because Soriano-Cruz failed to show persecution on
account of any protected ground, see Khudaverdyan v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1101,
1107 n.3 (9th Cir. 2015).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Soriano-Cruz failed
to meet his burden to show that it was more likely than not he would be tortured
with the acquiescence of the Mexican government. The country conditions in the
record demonstrate that the Mexican government has taken steps to combat
government corruption and organized crime, and there is a lack of evidence in the
record that Soriano-Cruz would be singled out for torture. See Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1068 (9th Cir. 2009) (“While [a petitioner] need not show that the
torture he fears would be ‘on account of’ . . . [a] particular social group, he must
still provide some reason to think that he is likely to be tortured by the actors he
fears.”). Therefore, the agency did not err in rejecting the claim for CAT
protection.
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --