FEDERICO SANCHEZ-VELASQUEZ, AKA Hugo Escobar v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FEDERICO SANCHEZ-VELASQUEZ,
AKA Hugo Escobar,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-73701
Agency No. A201-177-379
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Federico Sanchez-Velasquez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions
pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ’s”) decision denying his applications
for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
* 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
APR 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-73701
Torture (“CAT”). 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 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 review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to terminate.
Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for
review.
Because Sanchez-Velasquez does not contest the BIA’s determinations that
he did not challenge the IJ’s determinations that asylum was time-barred, his past
harm did not rise to the level of persecution, and a proposed particular social group
based on resistance to recruitment was not cognizable, we do not address these
issues. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
The BIA did not err in concluding that Sanchez-Velasquez failed to establish
membership in a cognizable particular social group based on being a returnee. See
Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (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

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-73701
Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also Conde
Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1243 (record lacked evidence of social distinction).
Thus, his asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Because Sanchez-Velasquez does not contest the BIA’s determination that
he did not challenge the IJ’s denial of CAT protection, we do not address it. See
Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.
The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Sanchez-Velasquez’s
motion to terminate. See United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188,
1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (lack of hearing information in notice to appear
does not deprive immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction, and 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.14(a) is satisfied when later notice provides hearing information).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --