Juan Sebastian Zamora-Sanchez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN SEBASTIAN ZAMORA-SANCHEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-70260
Agency No. A215-544-103
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Juan Sebastian Zamora-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
* 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
APR 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-70260
Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947
F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo questions of law, including
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. at
1241-42. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in concluding Zamora-Sanchez failed to establish
membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d
1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (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 Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099,
1103 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The particularity element requires characteristics that
provide a clear benchmark for determining who falls within the group,” and “[t]he
group must also be discrete and have definable boundaries—it must not be
amorphous, overbroad, diffuse, or subjective.” (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted)). To the extent Zamora-Sanchez raises new proposed particular
social groups in his opening brief, we lack jurisdiction to consider them because he
failed to raise the issues before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-70260
677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (petitioner must exhaust issues or claims in administrative
proceedings below). Thus, Zamora-Sanchez’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Zamora-Sanchez 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
Mexico. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no
likelihood of torture).
Zamora-Sanchez’s opposed request (Docket Entry No. 26) for administrative
closure is denied.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --