Opinion
21-70197
11-16-2022
TOMAS RAMIREZ-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted November 14, 2022 [**] San Jose, California
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A205-023-810
Before: GRABER, TALLMAN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Tomas Ramirez-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review from a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") upholding the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his claims for 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.
Ramirez-Gonzalez also sought asylum before the IJ and BIA, which was denied. He has not challenged that denial in his petition, so we do not address it.
1. As a preliminary matter, Ramirez-Gonzalez argues that the immigration court lacked jurisdiction because the Notice to Appear failed to specify the time or place of his initial removal hearing, even though a later notice provided that information. This argument is foreclosed by our recent en banc decision in United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1192-93, 1193 n.9 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (holding that a defective notice to appear does not deprive the immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction).
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Ramirez-Gonzalez is ineligible for withholding of removal because he has not identified a cognizable social group of which he is a part. Ramirez-Gonzalez argues that he will be persecuted in Mexico because he is a member of the social group of "Mexicans returning from the United States who have lived in the United States for a significant period of time." He argues that organized criminals in Mexico will kidnap, torture, or murder him because he will be perceived as vulnerable and affluent after living in the United States. The BIA concluded that this proposed social group was too broad to have particularity or social distinction in Mexican society. Although Ramirez-Gonzalez submitted country conditions evidence describing violence towards migrants, the evidence does not compel the conclusion that Mexican society perceives Mexicans with a long history of residing in the United States as a distinct group. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that "returning Mexicans from the United States" is "too broad to qualify as a cognizable social group").
3. Finally, with regard to his application for protection under the CAT, substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that Ramirez-Gonzalez failed to show that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if returned to Mexico. Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020). The record does not compel the conclusion that he established eligibility for protection under the CAT. Contrary to Ramirez-Gonzalez's argument to our court, the BIA expressly considered-and permissibly rejected-his argument that, due to the length of time that he has spent in the United States, he is more likely than not to be tortured.
PETITION DENIED.
[*] 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).