NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 25 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CIRINO IBANEZ-ROSAS, AKA Rosas No. 19-70811 Cirino, AKA Cirin Ibanez, AKA Cirino Ibanezrozas, Agency No. A205-720-475

Petitioner,

MEMORANDUM*

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 18, 2021**

Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Cirino Ibanez-Rosas, 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

* 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). and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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 review de novo claims of

due process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733,

738 (9th Cir. 2014). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to

terminate. Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the

petition for review.

The BIA did not err in concluding that Ibanez-Rosas 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 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).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Ibanez-Rosas

2 19-70811 failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground,

including membership in a family-based social group. See Ayala v. Holder, 640

F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is

established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on

account of his membership in such group”); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016

(9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals

motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a

protected ground”). Ibanez-Rosas’s contentions that the agency erred in its

analysis of his claim and ignored arguments fail as unsupported by the record. See

Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not write an

exegesis on every contention). Thus, Ibanez-Rosas’s withholding of removal

claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Ibanez-Rosas 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 Aden v.

Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Ibanez-Rosas’s motion to

terminate proceedings where his contention that the immigration court lacked

jurisdiction over his proceedings is foreclosed by Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d

3 19-70811 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (“the lack of time, date, and place in the NTA sent to

[petitioner] did not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction over her case”).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

4 19-70811