NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 15 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDGAR MARIANO VILLA PRADO, AKA No. 16-73720
Edgar Mariano, AKA Edgar Mariano Prado,
AKA Edgar Mariano Villa, AKA Edgar Agency No. A077-105-141
Marino Villa-Prado,
Petitioner, MEMORANDUM*
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Edgar Mariano Villa Prado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of
*
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).
removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v.
Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference
is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations,
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in finding that Villa Prado failed to establish
membership in a cognizable social group. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d
1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding “imputed wealthy Americans” returning
to Mexico did not constitute a particular social group); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder,
600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding “returning Mexicans from the
United States” did not constitute a particular social group). Thus, Villa Prado’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Villa Prado failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government of Mexico. See id. at 1152
(generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico not particular to petitioners
2 16-73720
was insufficient to establish CAT eligibility).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-73720
Edgar Villa Prado v. Jefferson Sessions
Combined Opinion