Luis Alberto Vega v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS ALBERTO VEGA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72461
Agency No. A077-348-545
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 14, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: NGUYEN and FORREST, Circuit Judges, and FITZWATER,*** District
Judge.
FILED
DEC 9 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).
*** The Honorable Sidney A. Fitzwater, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 4 --

Luis Alberto Vega (“Vega”) petitions for review of a decision by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) order
denying asylum and withholding of removal.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. Reviewing the agency’s factual determinations for substantial evidence, see
Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1268–69 (9th Cir. 2011), we deny the petition for
review.
1. The BIA properly found that Vega’s application for asylum was untimely
and therefore must be denied. Absent an exception, an alien must apply for asylum
within one year of arriving in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B); 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.4(a)(2). Here, although Vega arrived in the United States in 1992, he did not
apply for asylum until 2017. The IJ found that Vega’s application was inexcusably
untimely, and Vega made no argument regarding the timeliness of his application to
the BIA or to this court. Because Vega’s application for asylum was untimely,
substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision affirming the denial of Vega’s
application for asylum.
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision affirming the denial of
withholding of removal. “Withholding of removal requires the petitioner to
1 Although Vega initially applied for protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”), Vega did not appeal the IJ’s decision denying CAT protection to the
BIA and does not petition for review of this decision.
2

-- 2 of 4 --

demonstrate his or her ‘life or freedom would be threatened in that country because
of the petitioner’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group,
or political opinion.’” Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010)
(alterations adopted) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)). “A withholding of removal
applicant . . . must prove . . . that a cognizable protected ground is ‘a reason’ for future
persecution.” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1146 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting
Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359 (9th Cir. 2017)).
In his petition, Vega argues that he is a member of a particular social group
consisting of members of his father’s family. Vega testified before the IJ that he fears
persecution because his father was killed by members of the drug cartel. Vega further
testified that his cousins are members of the cartel, and he fears they will attempt to
recruit him into the cartel, and Vega or his sister, who has resided unharmed in
Mexico since Vega’s father was killed, might come to harm if Vega denies his
cousins.
The BIA found that “[e]ven assuming the immediate family of the respondent’s
father is accepted as a cognizable particular social group,” Vega had “not established
that his family membership, which he evidently shares with his cousins, would be a
reason” for any feared persecution. The BIA noted that the cousins Vega fears
persecution from are members of Vega’s purported social group, and Vega’s sister,
3

-- 3 of 4 --

who would also be a member of the social group, has “continued to live in Mexico
unharmed since the murder of the father.” Based on these facts, substantial evidence
supports the BIA’s decision that Vega failed to establish the requisite nexus between
his purported social group and feared future persecution.
PETITION DENIED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --