United States v. 2020-03-06 | 16-70860 | FREDY MATUS-BORGES V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FREDY MATUS-BORGES, AKA Delio
May-Cab,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 16-70860

Agency No. A091-556-959

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted March 3, 2020
**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Fredy Matus-Borges, 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, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

*
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

MAR 6 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 16-70860
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 interpretation 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. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755
F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in finding that Matus-Borges failed to establish
membership in a cognizable 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. Holder, 816
F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding “imputed wealthy Americans”
returning to Mexico did not constitute a particular social group); 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). Thus, Matus-
Borges’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

3 16-70860
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Matus-Borges’ remaining
contentions regarding his asylum and withholding of removal claims. 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 supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Matus-Borges 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
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
Matus-Borges establishes no error in the agency’s denial of administrative
closure under the factors applicable at the time of the BIA’s decision. See
Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 891 (9th Cir. 2018).
Finally, we reject Matus-Borges’ claim that the agency violated his Fifth and
Eighth Amendment due process rights. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032,
1039 (1984) (holding that “deportation is not to punish past transgressions but
rather to put an end to a continuing violation of the immigration laws.”); see also
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a
due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.