NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SERGIO BRAVO-FLORES, No. 15-72979
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-184-715
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Sergio Bravo-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for relief and ordering
removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
*
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).
evidence the agency’s factual determinations, and we review de novo questions of
law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the
petition for review.
The agency did not err in finding Bravo-Flores ineligible for cancellation of
removal, where he admitted to having a firearms-related conviction. See 8 U.S.C.
§§ 1229b(b)(1)(C), 1227(a)(2)(c); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d); Rendon v. Mukasey, 520
F.3d 967, 973 (9th Cir. 2008) (where “the evidence indicates that one or more of
the grounds for mandatory denial of the application for relief may apply, the alien
shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that such
grounds do not apply”).
Bravo-Flores has not challenged the agency’s denial of asylum as untimely
filed. See Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013)
(failure to contest issue in opening brief resulted in waiver).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of withholding of
removal, where Bravo-Flores failed to show it is more likely than not that he would
be persecuted on account of a protected ground in Mexico. See Delgado-Ortiz v.
Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant must generally show
an individualized, rather than a generalized, risk of persecution to establish
eligibility for asylum or withholding; “returning Mexicans from the United States”
is too broad to qualify as a cognizable social group). We are not persuaded by
2 15-72979
Bravo-Flores’s contention that “returning Mexican[s] from the United States with
U[.]S[.] born children that are less than fluent in Spanish” is more particular than
the social group which we rejected in Delgado-Ortiz. See id. at 1152 (contention
that members of the proposed social group may be “easily identified” does not
address the breadth of the proposed group).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), where Bravo-Flores failed to show it was
more likely than not that a government official in Mexico would torture him or
consent or acquiesce to his torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2); Delgado-Ortiz,
600 F.3d at 1152.
The record does not support Bravo-Flores’s contentions that the agency
ignored his evidence or arguments, failed to consider his eligibility for relief, or
failed to explain its reasoning. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th
Cir. 2010) (the agency must consider the issues raised and express its decision “in
terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and
thought and not merely reacted” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 15-72979