NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS LOPEZ-VASQUEZ, AKA Juan No. 20-71315
Carlos Lopez Vasquez,
Agency No. A205-710-260
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Lopez-Vasquez, 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 application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th
Cir. 2020). We review de novo the legal question of whether a particular social
group is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s
interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Id. at 1241-42. We review
de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v.
Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Lopez-
Vasquez failed to establish that the harm he experienced or fears was or would be
on account of an actual or imputed political opinion. See Sagaydak v. Gonzales,
405 F.3d 1035, 1042 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To establish a nexus to the political opinion
ground, the [petitioner] must show (1) that [petitioner] had either an affirmative or
imputed political opinion, and (2) that [petitioner was] targeted on account of that
opinion.”).
The agency did not err in concluding that Lopez-Vasquez did not establish
membership in a cognizable particular 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
1 20-71315
Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also Delgado-
Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding the proposed
social group “returning Mexicans from the United States” lacked particularity).
Lopez-Vasquez’s contention that the agency erred and violated his right to
due process by failing to consider a claim based on religion fails where the record
does not show Lopez-Vasquez raised or argued a religion claim in his pre-hearing
brief or during the merits hearing before the IJ. See Padilla-Martinez v. Holder,
770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-process claim, a petitioner
must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”).
Thus, Lopez-Vasquez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Lopez-Vasquez 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
Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too
speculative).
We reject as unsupported by the record Lopez-Vasquez’s contentions that
the agency failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of his
claims.
1 20-71315
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
1 20-71315