NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 18 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAUL MARTINEZ-MENDOZA, AKA No. 20-71567
Raul Castillo-Mendoza,
Agency No. A095-808-220
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Raul Martinez-Mendoza, 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
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, including determinations regarding social distinction. Conde Quevedo v.
Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (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. We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Martinez-
Mendoza failed to establish his proposed social group is socially distinct. See
Conde Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1243 (substantial evidence supported the agency’s
determination that petitioner’s proposed social group was not cognizable because
of the absence of society-specific evidence of social distinction). Thus, the BIA
did not err in concluding that Martinez-Mendoza 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))). Thus, Martinez-Mendoza’s withholding of removal
claim fails.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Martinez-Mendoza’s remaining
2 20-71567
contentions regarding the merits of his withholding of removal claim. 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 also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Martinez-Mendoza 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 Vitug v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1056, 1066 (9th Cir. 2013) (evidence did not compel
the conclusion that petitioner was more likely than not to be tortured where, in
part, past harm did not rise to the level of torture); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d
1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 20-71567