NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 1 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMIR MARTINEZ-DURAN, Nos. 13-73214
15-73543
Petitioner,
Agency No. A201-034-203
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney MEMORANDUM*
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2017**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.
Amir Martinez-Duran, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of
removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) (No. 13-73214),
*
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).
and of the BIA’s order denying his “motion to administratively close proceedings”
(No. 15-73543). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
questions of law de novo, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008),
except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the
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.
Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petitions for
review.
As to petition No. 13-73214, the agency properly denied Martinez-Duran’s
withholding of removal claim where he did not demonstrate that “Americanized
Mexicans” constituted a cognizable particular social group. See Ramirez-Munoz v.
Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016). We do not consider the podcast
referenced in Martinez-Duran’s opening brief that is not part of the administrative
record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Martinez-Duran’s CAT
claim because he failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by
the Mexican government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya, 524 F.3d
at 1073. We reject Martinez-Duran’s contentions that the IJ and BIA erred in
analyzing his CAT claim.
As to petition No. 15-73543, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in
2 13-73214
construing Martinez-Duran’s motion for administrative closure as a motion to
reopen where Martinez-Duran sought closure to pursue a possible I-601A
provisional unlawful presence waiver. Martinez-Duran’s motion was filed after a
final administrative order had been entered, and, thus, there were no administrative
proceedings to close. See Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2008) (the
court reviews the BIA’s ruling on a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion).
Martinez-Duran does not otherwise challenge the BIA’s order denying his motion.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-73214