FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DEC 08 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BERNARDO GUZMAN-ARANDA, No. 14-73265
Petitioner, Agency No. A047-347-949
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 5, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: D.W. NELSON and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and STEEH,***
District Judge.
*
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 George Caram Steeh III, United States District Judge
for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
Bernardo Guzman-Aranda petitions for review of the BIA’s decision
affirming the IJ’s order of removal. Guzman-Aranda claims (1) that the IJ relied on
inadmissible evidence in finding him removable and (2) that he is eligible for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture. We deny the petition for review.
1. Miranda warnings are not required in order for a statement to be
admissible in immigration proceedings. Trias-Hernandez v. I.N.S., 528 F.2d 366,
368-69 (9th Cir. 1975). That rule applies even if a criminal prosecution is
theoretically possible. Cf. Chavez v. Martin, 538 U.S. 760, 772-73 (2003).
Guzman-Aranda did not raise a claim based on any right to counsel he may have
had under 8 C.F.R. § 292.5(b). See Gonzaga-Ortega v. Holder, 736 F.3d 795, 802
& n.2, 804 (9th Cir. 2013).
2. An I-213 is presumptively admissible hearsay in a removal hearing unless
the noncitizen “come[s] forward with enough negative factors to persuade the court
not to admit it.” Espinoza v. I.N.S., 45 F.3d 308, 310 (9th Cir. 1995). Guzman-
Aranda’s sworn declaration that he did not recall making the statements attributed
to him in the I-213 cast doubt on the accuracy of the I-213. However, the
declaration was rebutted by the Record of Sworn Statement, the accuracy of which
he did not attempt to challenge. The I-213 was therefore properly admitted.
2
3. The government does not attempt to defend the BIA’s conclusion that
Guzman-Aranda’s proposed social group—of deportees from the United States to
Mexico who will be perceived as wealthy Americans because of their deep ties to
this country—is not a cognizable “particular social group” for purposes of asylum
and withholding of removal. Cf. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1150,
1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (finding a similar proposed social group
noncognizable on the record presented in that case); Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816
F.3d 1226, 1227-29 (9th Cir. 2016) (same). However, the record does not compel
the conclusion that he has a well-founded fear of future persecution in Mexico
based on his membership in this group. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049,
1061, 1064 (9th Cir. 2009); Navas v. I.N.S., 217 F.3d 646, 659 n.18 (9th Cir.
2000); Arriaga-Barrientos v. I.N.S., 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir. 1991). The
evidence therefore does not compel the conclusion that Guzman-Aranda is eligible
for either asylum or withholding. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th
Cir. 2011).
4. The record does not compel the conclusion that Guzman-Aranda is more
likely than not to be tortured in Mexico. Kamalthas v. I.N.S., 251 F.3d 1279, 1283
(9th Cir. 2001).
PETITION DENIED.
3