NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JORGE PALACIOS-AGUILAR, No. 14-73984
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-321-220
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Immigration Judge
Submitted March 9, 2018**
Pasadena, California
Before: GOULD and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY,*** District
Judge.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) issued Petitioner Jorge
Palacios-Aguilar a reinstated order of removal in late 2013 after he reentered the
*
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 Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
United States without permission following his previous removal from the United
States. Upon his return to the United States, and subsequent apprehension by
immigration authorities, he expressed a fear of returning to Mexico to immigration
authorities. Palacios-Aguilar stated he feared criminals, who could be colluding
with the Mexican government, would kidnap him. Palacios-Aguilar feared he
would be a kidnapping target because he would be returning to Mexico from the
United States and would be perceived as wealthy. He also feared being unable to
provide financially for his family. An asylum officer made a negative fear
determination in Palacios-Aguilar’s case and an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) agreed
with the asylum officer’s decision following a hearing and after reviewing the
asylum officer’s notes.
On appeal, Palacios-Aguilar argues he is at risk for persecution or torture in
Mexico because he belongs to the “particular social group that is previous U.S.
residents, his particular family, and as a parent of a child with a disability based
upon the medical condition of his children.” We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a)(1). See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 2016)
(citations omitted). Reviewing the IJ’s reasonable fear determination for
substantial evidence, we deny Palacios-Aguilar’s petition. See id.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Palacios-Aguilar
did not establish a reasonable fear of persecution should he be removed to Mexico.
2
See id. This court has determined that persons returning to Mexico from the United
States are not a cognizable social group. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d
1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148,
1151–52 (9th Cir. 2010). Moreover, generalized, non-particularized evidence of
violence and crime in Mexico, such as Palacios-Aguilar alleges here, cannot
establish that it is more likely than not that Palacios-Aguilar would be tortured if
he returned to Mexico. See Delgado-Ortiz, 600 F.3d at 1152; Nuru v. Gonzales,
404 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005) (explaining the petitioner has the burden of
proof to establish “that it is more likely than not” that he would be tortured if he
was removed) (citation omitted). Finally, even assuming that children with autism
and ADHD in Mexico and their parents constitute a particular social group, the
record does not support the conclusion that Palacios-Aguilar would be persecuted
because of his membership in that group. See Mendoza-Alvarez v. Holder, 714
F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2013) (Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination
upheld where substantial evidence supports that the petitioner would not be
persecuted because of his membership in a particular social group).
PETITION DENIED.
3