United States v. 2020-06-23 | 18-70267 | MILTON MARTINEZ-AVELAR V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MILTON ALBERTO MARTINEZ-
AVELAR,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 18-70267

Agency No. A091-785-928

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted June 19, 2020
**

Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Milton Alberto Martinez-Avelar, a native and citizen of El
Salvador, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying
a motion to reopen based on changed country conditions and Petitioner’s proposed
social group. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

*
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

JUN 23 2020

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

2
1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in determining that Petitioner’s
proposed social group of “individuals who possess markings that identify themselves
as members of the MS-13” was not cognizable. See Go v. Holder, 744 F.3d 604,
609 (9th Cir. 2014) (stating standard of review); see also Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d
1125, 1137–38 (9th Cir. 2016) (proposed social group of former gang members who
returned to El Salvador not cognizable); Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 945 (9th
Cir. 2007) (tattooed former gang members not “particular social group”).
2. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in concluding “the evidence that the
MS-13 has been designated as a terrorist organization is not sufficient to show
changed country conditions or circumstances material to this case.” Even with this
change in designation, Petitioner did not demonstrate that “circumstances have
changed sufficiently that a petitioner who previously did not have a legitimate claim
for asylum now has a well-founded fear of future persecution.” Ramirez-Munoz v.
Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Malty v. Ashcroft, 381 F. 3d
942, 945 (9th Cir. 2004)).
PETITION DENIED.