Juan Ramiro Gil Sierra v. Merrick B. Garland, United States Attorney General

1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN RAMIRO GIL SIERRA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
No. 21-755
Agency No. A206-547-562
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted on April 19, 2023 **
Portland, Oregon
Before: RAWLINSON and SUNG, Circuit Judges, and MORRIS,*** District
Judge.
Juan Ramiro Gil Sierra (“Gil Sierra”), born in and a citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)
dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order. Gil Sierra seeks
* 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 Brian M. Morris, United States District Judge for
the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
FILED
APR 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 5 --

2
review of the denial of his applications for cancellation of removal, asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We lack jurisdiction to review the claim regarding cancellation of
removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), and the claim regarding the timeliness of
Gil Sierra’s asylum application, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3), and we dismiss the
petition as to those claims. We retain jurisdiction over the withholding and CAT
claims, 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition as to those claims.
1. Gil Sierra challenges the denial of his application for cancellation
of removal on the ground that he is statutorily ineligible because he is not a
person of good moral character. Gil Sierra also challenges the IJ’s determination
that he did not warrant relief as a matter of discretion. Gil Sierra does not argue
that the BIA or IJ applied an incorrect legal standard. Gil Sierra instead
contends that the IJ based the good moral character and ultimate discretionary
decision upon an incomplete review of the “positive factors in the record” and
an erroneous review of the facts underlying Gil Sierra’s criminal and arrest
history, leading to an improper finding that the adverse factors outweighed the
evidence that would support an exercise of the IJ’s discretion. We lack
jurisdiction to review the merits of a discretionary decision, but we may review
whether an IJ considered relevant evidence in making this decision. Szonyi v.
Barr, 942 F.3d 874, 896 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d
1195 (9th Cir. 2012)). The record reveals that the IJ provided a thorough review
of the facts relevant to Gil Sierra’s application, including a discussion of Gil

-- 2 of 5 --

3
Sierra’s employment and family circumstances. The IJ’s consideration of the
evidence in Gil Sierra’s case does not constitute the type of failure we
contemplated in Szonyi. We accordingly do not have jurisdiction to review the
IJ’s decision that Gil Sierra did not merit cancellation of removal. Id. The IJ’s
finding that Gil Sierra abused alcohol and engaged in sometimes violent
behavior toward family members represents a factual determination that
underlies the denial of discretionary relief that 8 U.S.C. § 1229b authorizes.
Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) “strips courts of jurisdiction to review ‘any judgment
regarding the granting of relief’” under the specified provisions, including 8
U.S.C. § 1229b. Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1621 (2022). We lack
jurisdiction to review this contested factual determination. Id. We therefore
dismiss the petition as to Gil Sierra’s claim regarding cancellation of removal.
2. Gil Sierra next argues that the IJ erred in determining that Gil
Sierra had failed to establish any exception that would render his asylum
application timely. The IJ determined that Gil Sierra had failed to establish a
changed or extraordinary circumstance that would justify Gil Sierra’s late-filed
application. The BIA dismissed the appeal of this decision. Gil Sierra offers
only conclusory arguments that the IJ failed to consider his proffered evidence.
Gil Sierra has not raised a question of law or a mixed question of law and fact
that would allow review of the timeliness of Gil Sierra’s asylum application.
Gasparyan v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2013); 8 U.S.C. §
1158(a)(3). We dismiss the petition as to Gil Sierra’s asylum claim.

-- 3 of 5 --

4
3. Gil Sierra argues that the IJ erred in denying his application for
withholding of removal. He contests the denial in part based upon the
determination that his proposed social group of recent deportees who came to
the United States as minors and have spent significant portions of their lives in
the United States was not cognizable. “Whether a group constitutes a ‘particular
social group’ under the [Immigration and Nationality Act] is a question of law
we review de novo.” Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 665 (9th Cir. 2010). Gil
Sierra has articulated a fear that, as a member of his proposed social group of
recent deportees, he would be perceived as wealthy. We previously have
rejected the cognizability of social groups comprised of various categories of
recent deportees, including groups of “imputed wealthy Americans.” See
Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016); Delgado-Ortiz
v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151 (9th Cir. 2010). Substantial evidence supports
the denial of Gil Sierra’s application for withholding of removal. We deny Gil
Sierra’s petition as to his withholding claim.
4. Gil Sierra finally contends that it was error to deny his CAT claim.
Substantial evidence supports the determination that Gil Sierra is not eligible for
CAT relief. Eligibility for CAT relief required Gil Sierra to show “it is more
likely than not that he . . . would be tortured if removed to the proposed country
of removal.” Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 834 (9th Cir. 2022)
(quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2)). Gil Sierra has failed to identify any
evidence specific to him. Gil Sierra instead articulates fears of general violence,

-- 4 of 5 --

5
criminality, and corruption in Mexico. Evidence of generalized violence fails to
establish a sufficiently particularized risk of torture to Gil Sierra. See Gonzalez-
Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 895 (9th Cir. 2018). We deny Gil Sierra’s
petition as to his CAT claim.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.

-- 5 of 5 --