United States v. 2020-03-11 | 16-70347 | DANIEL APARICIO-CAMERO V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL ANDRES APARICIO-CAMERO,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

Nos. 16-70347
19-71249

Agency No. A205-491-426

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.

In these consolidated petitions for review, Daniel Andres Aparicio-Camero,
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”) (petition No. 16-70347), and the

*
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 11 2020

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

2 16-70347
BIA’s order denying his motion to reconsider and terminate proceedings (petition
No. 19-71249). We have 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. Zehatye v.
Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We review for abuse of
discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d
785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petitions for review.
As to petition No. 16-70347, the agency did not err in finding that Aparicio-
Camero’s proposed social group based on his status as an Americanized returnee
was not cognizable. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in
order to demonstrate membership in a particular 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. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th
Cir. 2016) (concluding that “imputed wealthy Americans” returning to Mexico
does not constitute a particular social group).

3 16-70347
In addition, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
Aparicio-Camero failed to establish the harm he experienced or fears was or would
be on account of his family membership or any other protected ground. See Zetino
v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free
from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang
members bears no nexus to a protected ground”); see also Ayala v. Holder, 640
F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is
established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on
account of his membership in such group”).
Thus, Aparicio-Camero’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Aparicio-Camero 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
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Delgado-Ortiz v.
Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and
crime in petitioner’s home country was insufficient to meet standard for CAT
relief).
As to petition No. 19-71249, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying
Aparicio-Camero’s motion to reconsider and terminate proceedings. See
Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158, 1160-62 (9th Cir. 2019) (notice to appear

4 16-70347
need not include time and date of hearing to vest jurisdiction in the immigration
court); Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005) (the BIA abuses
its discretion if it acts arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to law).
We deny Aparicio-Camero’s request for a remand.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.