NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA GUADALUPE CAMPOS No. 18-72716
CASTRO; et al.,
Agency Nos. A096-229-968
Petitioners, A208-306-698
A208-306-699
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 19, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Maria Guadalupe Campos Castro and her two children, natives and citizens
of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
*
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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v.
Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We review questions of law de
novo, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent
that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and
regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review
for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to file an untimely brief.
Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo claims
of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Id. at 1011-12. We dismiss
in part and deny in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ second request
for an extension of time to file a brief on appeal, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(c)(1) (BIA
has discretion to extend time period for filing brief on appeal), and the record
demonstrates that the proceedings before the BIA satisfied petitioners’ right to due
process, see Zetino, 622 F.3d at 1013-14.
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ unexhausted past persecution
claim. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
The agency did not err in determining that petitioners’ proposed social
2 18-72716
groups were not cognizable. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir.
2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular group, “[t]he applicant
must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common
immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct
within the society in question.’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec.
227, 237 (BIA 2014))). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination
that petitioners failed to establish that the harm they fear in Mexico would be on
account of family membership or any other protected ground. See Zetino, 622 F.3d
at 1016 (“An [applicant’s] desire to be free from harassment by criminals
motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a
protected ground.”). In light of this disposition, we need not reach petitioners’
remaining contentions. See Simeonov, 371 F.3d at 538 (“As a general rule courts
and agencies are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is
unnecessary to the results they reach.” (citation omitted)). Thus, petitioners’
asylum and withholding claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners failed to establish it is more likely than not they will be tortured by or
3 18-72716
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part, DENIED in part.
4 18-72716