NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 6 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTURO GRANADOS-ARANDA, No. 17-71344
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-806-826
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 3, 2020**
Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Arturo Granados-Aranda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of 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,
*
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).
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 substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder,
755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Granados-
Aranda failed to establish that the harassment and physical harm he experienced in
Mexico rose to the level of persecution. See Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d
1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant who alleges past persecution has the
burden of proving that the treatment rises to the level of persecution); Nagoulko v.
INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Persecution . . . is an extreme concept
that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.”
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
Granados-Aranda does not challenge the agency’s finding that “imputed
American nationality” is not a protected ground. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94
F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by
argument are deemed abandoned.”).
The agency did not err in finding that Granados-Aranda failed to establish
2 17-71344
that his proposed particular social group of “persons who have lived in the United
States since their youth who have adopted an American cultural identity and are
removed to Mexico” was 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))); see also Ramirez-Munoz v. Holder, 816 F.3d 1226,
1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding “imputed wealthy Americans” returning to
Mexico did not constitute a particular social group).
Thus, Granados-Aranda’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Granados-Aranda’s remaining
contentions regarding his asylum and withholding of removal claims. See
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are
not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Granados-Aranda failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
3 17-71344
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of
torture).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4 17-71344