FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DEC 14 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HERIBERTO VALENZUELA- No. 15-70800
VALENZUELA,
Agency No. A095-725-283
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 14, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and SMITH,*** Chief 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 William E. Smith, Chief United States District Judge
for the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.
Heriberto Valenzuela-Valenzuela (Valenzuela-Valenzuela) is a native and
citizen of Mexico. He petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(BIA) final order denying his motion to reopen to apply for withholding of removal
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) and relief under the United Nations Convention
Against Torture (CAT). Jurisdiction exists under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The Court
reviews the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Ramirez-
Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228 (9th Cir. 2016). The petition is denied.
First, Valenzuela-Valenzuela asserts membership in the proposed particular
social group “Americanized Mexicans” or “pochos” to argue eligibility for
withholding of removal. This Court, however, has unambiguously rejected this
proposed social group as not cognizable under the Immigration and Nationality
Act. See Ramirez-Munoz, 816 F.3d at 1228–29; Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600
F.3d 1148, 1151–52 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam).
Moreover, Valenzuela-Valenzuela provided “insufficient evidence to
support [his] claim that [his] alleged American appearance will make [him a]
target[] for violent crimes upon return to Mexico any more than the populace at
large.” Ramirez-Munoz, 816 F.3d at 1229. The evidence Valenzuela-Valenzuela
set forth to demonstrate changed circumstances detailed crime against Americans,
persons with American relatives, migrants, and affluent and middle-class Mexican
2
residents. This evidence does not, however, demonstrate that crime against these
groups necessarily translates to an increased risk to Valenzuela-Valenzuela based
on his alleged Americanized Mexican status, and Valenzuela-Valenzuela’s
conclusory assertion in his opening brief that “those perceived as Americans
clearly run the same risk” cannot carry the day. The BIA, therefore, did not abuse
its discretion in denying Valenzuela-Valenzuela’s motion to reopen with respect to
his withholding-of-removal claim.
Valenzuela-Valenzuela’s argument with respect to CAT relief is similarly
deficient. To prevail on this claim, Petitioner must demonstrate it is more likely
than not he would be tortured upon removal to Mexico. Ramirez-Munoz, 816 F.3d
at 1230. Here, Valenzuela-Valenzuela cross-references the same evidence
advanced in the context of his argument for withholding of removal. Yet, this
“generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is not particular to
Petitioner[] and is insufficient to meet this standard.” Delgado-Ortiz, 600 F.3d at
1152; see also Riera-Riera v. Lynch, 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[H]e
otherwise relies on generalized evidence, which is insufficient for protection under
CAT.”). Thus, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Valenzuela-
Valenzuela’s motion to reopen based on CAT protection.
3
Finally, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of
administrative closure. Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114, 1118–20
(9th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, because Valenzuela-Valenzuela has not shown that the BIA
abused its discretion, the petition for review is DENIED.
4