NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARIBERTO ROQUE-SANCHEZ, No. 16-70025
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-412-360
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.
Ariberto Roque-Sanchez, 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 application for 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, Cerezo v.
*
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).
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 in part and grant in part the petition for
review, and we remand.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Roque-Sanchez failed to show that 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 Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
As to withholding of removal, the BIA did not err in finding that Roque-
Sanchez’s proposed social group “young men targeted for recruitment by the drug
cartels and gangs” is not cognizable. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th
Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular social 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))).
The BIA also considered the proposed social group “young men returning
from the United States to Mexico.” In finding that the group was not cognizable,
2
the BIA failed to consider the age and gender characteristics of the proposed social
group. See Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077, 1084 (9th Cir. 2014) (explaining
that to determine whether a group is a particular social group the agency must
make a case-by-case determination as to whether the group is recognized by the
particular society in question); see also Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184
(9th Cir. 2004) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the
grounds relied upon by that agency. If we conclude that the BIA’s decision cannot
be sustained upon its reasoning, we must remand to allow the agency to decide any
issues remaining in the case.”). Thus, we grant the petition for review as to Roque-
Sanchez’s withholding of removal claim, and remand to the agency for further
consideration of his withholding of removal claim consistent with this disposition.
See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
The government shall bear the costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.
3