United States v. 2020-01-10 | 16-73242 | SEBASTIAN ROS MENDEZ V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SEBASTIAN DANILO ROS MENDEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 16-73242

Agency No. A206-676-915

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 8, 2020
**

Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Sebastian Danilo Ros Mendez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law,

*
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

JAN 10 2020

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

2 16-73242
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. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d
1066, 1070 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in finding that Ros Mendez failed to establish
membership in a cognizable social group. 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 Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849,
854-55 (9th Cir. 2009) (men in Guatemala resisting gang violence is not a
particular social group).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Ros
Mendez failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See Aden
v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.