Opinion
18-71702
10-25-2022
PRIMO SANCHEZ-REYES, AKA Primo Lopez-Sanchez, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 21, 2022 [**] Pasadena, California
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A095-753-820
Before: GOULD, WATFORD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Primo Sanchez-Reyes petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") decision dismissing his appeal from the decision of an immigration judge ("IJ") denying his applications for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We dismiss the petition insofar as it concerns the denial of asylum and cancellation of removal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny the petition as to Sanchez-Reyes's claims for withholding of removal and CAT relief.
1. "[F]ailure to raise an issue in an appeal to the BIA constitutes a failure to exhaust remedies with respect to that question and deprives this court of jurisdiction to hear the matter." Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal citations omitted). In his appeal to the BIA, Sanchez-Reyes did not challenge the IJ's denial of asylum and cancellation of removal. We lack jurisdiction to consider those claims.
2. In his opening brief, Sanchez-Reyes does not challenge the IJ's finding that he did not experience past persecution. Absent a determination of past persecution, an applicant seeking withholding of removal must demonstrate that he would face a clear probability of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion upon removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA's denial of Sanchez-Reyes's application for withholding of removal. The agency permissibly found that Sanchez-Reyes's first proposed social group-"long-term United States residents who will be subjected to kidnapping and ransom upon their return to Mexico due to money they bring with them and/or perceived money that they have based on their Americanized accents and mannerisms"-is not legally cognizable. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016) (rejecting a proposed social group of "imputed wealthy Americans" because it was "not a discrete class of persons recognized by society as a particular social group"); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (rejecting a proposed social group of "returning Mexicans from the United States" as "too broad"). In addition, the agency permissibly found that Sanchez-Reyes did not establish a nexus to his second proposed social group, "family." There is no evidence in the record that he experienced past harm on account of his family membership or that other family members have experienced past harm on account of their family membership.
3. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA's denial of CAT protection. An applicant for CAT relief must show that torture upon removal is "more likely than not." 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). "[G]eneralized evidence of violence and crime" that is not specific to an applicant "is insufficient to meet this standard." Delgado-Ortiz, 600 F.3d at 1152. Sanchez-Reyes has not presented evidence of past torture, and his concern about "too much violence" in Mexico does not demonstrate that he faces a particular risk of torture. The record therefore does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that Sanchez-Reyes will be tortured if removed to Mexico. See Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 770 (9th Cir. 2011).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART and DISMISSED IN PART.
[*] 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).