ABRAHAM YEPEZ-GALINDO, AKA Abraham Galindo Yepez, AKA Abraham Yepez Galindo v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ABRAHAM YEPEZ-GALINDO, AKA
Abraham Galindo Yepez, AKA Abraham
Yepez Galindo,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72540
Agency No. A076-638-808
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Abraham Yepez-Galindo, 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 asylum,
* 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).
FILED
OCT 29 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-72540
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,
Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that
deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and
regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453
F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.
Even if extortion threats to his mother and his uncle’s shooting constituted
changed circumstances, the record does not compel the conclusion that Yepez-
Galindo filed his asylum application within a reasonable period of time. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4); see also Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1181-82 (9th
Cir. 2008) (364-day delay in filing after showing of extraordinary circumstances
was not reasonable).
The BIA did not err in finding that Yepez-Galindo did not establish
membership in a cognizable social group. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d
1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding that “imputed wealthy Americans”
returning to Mexico does not constitute a particular social group); Delgado-Ortiz v.
Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that “returning
Mexicans from the United States” does not constitute a particular social group).
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-72540
because petitioner failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured if
returned to Mexico. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011)
(possibility of torture too speculative).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --