Miguel Angel Valencia Lima v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL ANGEL VALENCIA LIMA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70062
Agency No. A042-244-795
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Miguel Angel Valencia Lima, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision finding him removable and denying
his applications for cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and
* 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
NOV 12 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-70062
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835
F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). 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.
The agency did not err in concluding that Valencia Lima’s conviction under
California Penal Code (“CPC”) § 245(a)(1) is categorically a crime of violence
aggravated felony. See United States v. Vasquez-Gonzalez, 901 F.3d 1060, 1065-
68 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding CPC § 245(a)(1) is categorically a crime of violence).
Thus, the agency also did not err in concluding that Valencia Lima’s conviction
rendered him removable, see 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), ineligible for asylum,
see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), (B), and ineligible for cancellation of removal,
see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Valencia
Lima 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-70062
of the absence of society-specific evidence of social distinction). Thus, the BIA
did not err in concluding that Valencia Lima did not establish membership in a
cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131,
1136-37 (9th Cir. 2016) (setting out the requirements for an applicant to
demonstrate membership in a cognizable particular social group and rejecting the
challenge to the BIA’s determination that a particular social group based on former
gang members who return to El Salvador was not cognizable). Thus, Valencia
Lima’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Valencia Lima 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 El Salvador. See
Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too
speculative).
Valencia Lima’s contention that the lack of time, date, and place in his
Notice to Appear deprived the immigration court of jurisdiction is foreclosed by
this court’s decision in Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 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”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --