Carlos Robles Miranda v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS ROBLES MIRANDA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-72243
Agency No. A097-562-066
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, NGUYEN, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Robles Miranda, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of cancellation of removal, withholding of
* 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
MAY 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
1. Robles Miranda argues that under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105
(2018), his Notice to Appear (“NTA”) did not vest jurisdiction with the
immigration court because it lacked the address of the immigration court where the
NTA was filed, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15(b). We have held, however, that
Pereira “simply has no application” to the question of immigration court
jurisdiction. Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1161 (9th Cir. 2019).
Moreover, an NTA may vest jurisdiction when it lacks the time and date of the
initial removal hearing, id. at 1160–62, and when it lacks the address of the
immigration court where the NTA is filed, Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887,
895 (9th Cir. 2020).
2. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(C), any noncitizen convicted of a crime
of domestic violence is ineligible for cancellation of removal. “‘[C]rime of
domestic violence’ means any crime of violence (as defined in [18 U.S.C. § 16])
against a person committed by” a domestic partner. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i).
Robles Miranda is ineligible for cancellation of removal because he was convicted
under California Penal Code (“CPC”) § 273.5, which is categorically a crime of
domestic violence within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i). Carrillo v.
Holder, 781 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding that CPC § 273.5’s

-- 2 of 3 --

3
application to violence against “cohabitants” does not render the statute broader
than the generic offense).
3. Robles Miranda has not met his burden to show that “Mexican males
returning from the United States perceived with wealth” is a sufficiently socially
distinct or particularized group. We have recently held that a nearly identical
(albeit gender neutral) group was too broad to be cognizable. Barbosa v. Barr, 926
F.3d 1053, 1059–60 (9th Cir. 2019) (“individuals returning to Mexico from the
United States who are believed to be wealthy” (cleaned up)); see also Delgado-
Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151–52 (9th Cir. 2010) (same, as to “returning
Mexicans from the United States”); Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229
(9th Cir. 2016) (same, as to “imputed wealthy Americans” returning to Mexico).
Moreover, the record evidence does not show that returnees (male, perceived
wealthy, or otherwise) are recognized as a particular social group by Mexican
society as a whole or by potential persecutors.
4. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of relief under the CAT.
The BIA acknowledged that Robles Miranda offered evidence of government
acquiescence in violent crimes, but it affirmed the IJ’s finding that Robles Miranda
had not shown that he suffered past torture or that he was more likely than not to
be tortured in Mexico. The record does not compel a contrary conclusion.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --