NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 8 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS FELIPE ROJAS-MACIEL, No. 18-70671
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-648-486
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 2, 2020**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Luis Felipe Rojas-Maciel, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and
cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
*
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).
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 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.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Rojas-Maciel applied for
asylum within a reasonable time of any changed or extraordinary circumstances as
to excuse the untimely filing of his asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. §
1208.4(a)(4), (5); Toj-Culpatan v. Holder, 612 F.3d 1088, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2010).
Thus, Rojas-Maciel’s asylum claim fails.
As to withholding of removal, the agency did not err in finding that Rojas-
Maciel failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group. 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))); 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
2 18-70671
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, Rojas-Maciel’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Rojas-Maciel failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of
torture).
The record does not support Rojas-Maciel’s contentions that the agency
failed to consider evidence or otherwise provided insufficient analysis of his
claims. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need
not write an exegesis on every contention); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592,
603 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner did not overcome the presumption that the BIA
reviewed the record).
As to cancellation of removal, the record does not support Rojas-Maciel’s
contentions that the agency applied the incorrect standard in evaluating hardship to
his United States citizen children. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(d); see also Figueroa
v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 493-496 (9th Cir. 2008) (court has jurisdiction to review
whether IJ required a showing of “unconscionable” hardship); Cabrera-Alvarez v.
Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1006, 1013 (9th Cir. 2005) (children’s hardships were not
3 18-70671
“exceptional and extremely unusual,” where although “the children would suffer
emotionally” if separated from their father, they would be cared for in the United
States by family).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4 18-70671