United States v. 2020-03-05 | 18-72707 | ERIK LEYVA-VILLASENOR V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERIK LEYVA-VILLASENOR, AKA Erik
Leyva Villesenor,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-72707
Agency No. A088-734-156
MEMORANDUM
*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 3, 2020
**
Seattle, Washington
Before: IKUTA, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Erik Leyva-Villasenor appeals the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
order affirming the immigration judge’s denial of withholding of removal. We
have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1).
FILED
MAR 5 2020
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).

Even if the BIA erred in not addressing Leyva-Villasenor’s argument that
“the IJ impermissibly failed to ensure that the record was complete,” any error was
harmless because the IJ did not have an obligation to develop the record, given that
Leyva-Villasenor was represented by counsel, see Dent v. Holder, 627 F.3d 365,
373–74 (9th Cir. 2010), and because the IJ did not rely on country conditions
evidence that was not in the record, cf. In re S-M-J-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 722, 732 (BIA
1997).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by not remanding for further
fact-finding. Leyva-Villasenor provided no evidence that his alleged particular
social group is socially distinct in Mexico. See Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d
1238, 1241–43 (9th Cir. 2020). Therefore, he failed to show his withholding claim
was plausible and cannot establish he was prejudiced by the alleged ineffective
assistance of counsel. See Martinez-Hernandez v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1086, 1088
(9th Cir. 2015).
AFFIRMED.
2