NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 15 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSTER JAVIER AMAYA-IZCOA, AKA No. 17-70116
Joster Amaya,
Agency No. A094-291-925
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Joster Javier Amaya-Izcoa, a native and citizen of Honduras, 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 de novo claims of due
process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d
532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). 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. Conde Quevedo
v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Id. at 1241. We deny the petition for
review.
Amaya-Izcoa’s constitutional challenge to the one-year filing deadline for
asylum fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (error is
required to prevail on a due process claim); see also Gonzalez-Medina v. Holder,
641 F.3d 333, 337 (9th Cir. 2011) (there is a legitimate government purpose for the
one-year bar). Thus, Amaya-Izcoa’s asylum claim fails.
The agency did not err in concluding that Amaya-Izcoa 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))). We reject as
2 17-70116
unsupported Amaya-Izcoa’s contentions that the BIA erred in its analysis of his
claim. Thus, Amaya-Izcoa’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Amaya-Izcoa 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 Honduras. See
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of
torture).
Amaya-Izcoa’s contentions that the United States immigration laws violate
due process fail. See Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982) (“[T]he power
to admit or exclude aliens is a sovereign prerogative.”). To the extent Amaya-
Izcoa requests that we overturn precedent, we deny the request. See Aleman
Gonzalez v. Barr, 955 F.3d 762, 768 (9th Cir. 2020) (a three-judge panel cannot
overrule circuit precedent in the absence of an intervening decision from the
Supreme Court or an en banc decision of this court).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 17-70116