FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY 29 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GLORIA BARRERA DE HUERTA, AKA No. 15-70576
Gloria Barrera-Villa, AKA Rosa Delgado,
AKA Gloria Huerta, AKA Gloria B. Agency No. A044-764-952
Huerta, AKA Maria Huerta, AKA Gloria
Huretz, AKA Maria Lopez, AKA Rosa
Dlegado MEMORANDUM*
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submission Deferred November 15, 2017**
Submitted May 29, 2018
San Francisco, California
*
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).
Before: RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and SMITH,*** Chief District
Judge.
Gloria Barrera de Huerta, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”) denial of withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, Retuta v.
Holder, 591 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2010), and denial of withholding of removal
and protection under CAT for substantial evidence, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d
1034, 1039, 1049 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition.
Barrera de Huerta argues she is eligible for withholding of removal based on
membership in the proposed particular social group “Americanized Mexicans” or
“pochos.” We have previously held that such a group does not meet the legal
requirements for a particular social group under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3). See
Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228–29 (9th Cir. 2016) (denying
withholding of removal because petitioners’ proposed group, “imputed wealthy
Americans,” was not cognizable as a particular social group); Delgado-Ortiz v.
Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151–52 (9th Cir. 2010) (denying withholding of removal
because “[p]etitioners’ proposed social group, ‘returning Mexicans from the
***
The Honorable William E. Smith, Chief United States District Judge
for the District of Rhode Island, sitting by designation.
2
United States,’ . . . is too broad to qualify as a cognizable social group”). The BIA
properly denied Barrera de Huerta’s withholding of removal claim.
With respect to the CAT claim, Barrera de Huerta testified that she has twice
been the victim of violent crime in Mexico, and the Immigration Judge found her
credible. She has not, however, shown that the Mexican government acquiesces in
violent crime. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014)
(“Evidence that the police were aware of a particular crime, but failed to bring the
perpetrators to justice, is not in itself sufficient to establish acquiescence in the
crime.”). Nor has she shown she is any more likely to be a victim of violence or
crime than the populace of Mexico as a whole. See Ramirez-Munoz, 816 F.3d at
1230 (“Where Petitioners have not shown they are any more likely to be victims of
violence and crimes than the populace as a whole in Mexico, they have failed to
carry their burden.”); Delgado-Ortiz, 600 F.3d at 1152 (“Petitioners’ generalized
evidence of violence and crime in Mexico is not particular to Petitioners and is
insufficient to meet th[e] standard [for relief under CAT].”). Thus, substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s denial of her CAT claim.
The petition for review is DENIED.
3