NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
ABEL DIAZ-OROZCO, No. 19-72541
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-456-914
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.
Abel Diaz-Orozco, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 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).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of
law, Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014), including 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, Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo, 947
F.3d. at 1241. We deny in part, dismiss in part, and grant in part the petition for
review, and we remand.
The agency did not err in concluding that Diaz-Orozco 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
Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also Ramirez-
Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (proposed particular social
group based on perceived wealth not sufficiently particular). We lack jurisdiction
to consider Diaz-Orozco’s contentions that the IJ considered an incorrectly
articulated particular social group because he failed to raise the issue before the
BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks
2 19-72541
jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). Diaz-Orozco’s
contentions that the agency erred in its legal analysis or ignored evidence fail. See
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the agency adequately
considered evidence and sufficiently announced its decision). In light of this
disposition, we do not reach Diaz-Orozco’s remaining contention regarding his
claims for asylum and withholding of removal. 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). Thus, Diaz-Orozco’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.
In denying CAT relief, the BIA incorrectly stated that Diaz-Orozco’s ability
to relocate was dispositive of his claim. See Maldonado v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1155,
1164 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (explaining that the possibility of internal relocation
is one of several non-determinative factors the agency must consider under the
governing regulations and remanding where the agency denied CAT relief on the
improper reasoning that petitioner had “failed to prove that relocation within
Mexico was impossible”). We therefore grant the petition for review as to Diaz-
Orozco’s CAT claim and remand to the agency for further proceedings consistent
with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
3 19-72541
Diaz-Orozco’s removal is stayed pending a decision by the BIA.
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part;
GRANTED in part; REMANDED.
4 19-72541
Abel Diaz-Orozco v. Merrick Garland
Combined Opinion