Feliciano Hernandez Cipriano v. Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Feliciano Hernandez Cipriano,
Petitioner,
v.
Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-318
Agency No. A208-085-697
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Feliciano Hernandez Cipriano, 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
and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review de novo the legal question of whether a particular social group is
cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s
* 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
JUL 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Case: 21-318, 07/22/2022, DktEntry: 27.1, Page 1 of 2

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-318
interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Conde Quevedo v.
Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings. Id. at 1241. We deny the petition for
review.
The BIA did not err in concluding that Hernandez Cipriano did not
establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v.
Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order 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 Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th
Cir. 2010) (“returning Mexicans from the United States” does not constitute a
particular social group); Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059-60 (9th Cir.
2019) (proposed group, like that rejected in Delgado-Ortiz, is “too broad” to
qualify as a cognizable particular social group). Thus, Hernandez Cipriano’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Case: 21-318, 07/22/2022, DktEntry: 27.1, Page 2 of 2

-- 2 of 2 --