From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gutierrez-Vargas v. Barr

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Aug 26, 2019
No. 15-72047 (9th Cir. Aug. 26, 2019)

Opinion

No. 15-72047

08-26-2019

ARTURO JHOHARY GUTIERREZ-VARGAS, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Agency No. A200-690-635 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Arturo Jhohary Gutierrez-Vargas, 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 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition.

Whether a group constitutes a "particular social group" is a question of law that we review de novo, Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 665 (9th Cir. 2010), but we defer to the BIA's interpretation of governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016).

The BIA did not err in finding that Gutierrez-Vargas has not established membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining cognizability standard) (citing Matter of M-E-G-V-, 26 I & N Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014)). Gutierrez-Vargas has not established that persons returning to Mexico from the United States who have assimilated to the culture would be perceived by society as a particular social group. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (returnees from the United States to Mexico is not a particular social group). Thus, Gutierrez-Vargas's asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence supports the agency's denial of CAT relief. The record does not compel the conclusion that Gutierrez-Vargas is "more likely than not" to be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if he returns to Mexico. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); see also Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). Thus, Gutierrez-Vargas's CAT claim also fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.


Summaries of

Gutierrez-Vargas v. Barr

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Aug 26, 2019
No. 15-72047 (9th Cir. Aug. 26, 2019)
Case details for

Gutierrez-Vargas v. Barr

Case Details

Full title:ARTURO JHOHARY GUTIERREZ-VARGAS, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Aug 26, 2019

Citations

No. 15-72047 (9th Cir. Aug. 26, 2019)