Opinion
23-1094
06-11-2024
MIGUEL ANGEL DELGADILLO MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted June 7, 2024 [**] Portland, Oregon.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A208-080-792.
Before: GRABER, RAWLINSON, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Petitioner Miguel Angel Delgadillo Martinez ("Delgadillo"), a native and citizen of Mexico, timely petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing factual findings for substantial evidence and legal conclusions de novo, Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2020), we deny the petition.
Delgadillo does not seek review of the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of cancellation of removal and denial of voluntary departure.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of Delgadillo's claims for asylum and withholding of removal. Delgadillo does not contest on appeal the IJ's finding that he failed to show changed circumstances justifying his sixteen-year delay in filing his asylum application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). And even if Delgadillo did not waive his particular social group claim when he phrased his proposed particular social group in slightly different terms before the BIA, neither formulation is cognizable. See Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2019) (proposed particular social group of individuals "returning to Mexico [from] the United States [who] are believed to be wealthy" is not cognizable (brackets in original)); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (proposed particular social group of "returning Mexicans from the United States" is not cognizable). Delgadillo also has not articulated a political opinion or shown that he would be targeted on account of a political opinion imputed to him. See Chen v. INS, 95 F.3d 801, 806 (9th Cir. 1996) ("[A] victim's refusal to cooperate with a potential persecutor is not necessarily expressive conduct constituting a political opinion . . . the persecutor must act because of the victim's political opinion, rather than simply because of his refusal to cooperate." (citing INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 480-83 (1992))).
Delgadillo consistently used the slang term "pocho" to define his particular social group before both the IJ and BIA. The BIA's conclusion that Delgadillo impermissibly changed his proposed particular social group on appeal appears to stem from Delgadillo's counsel's use of slightly different words to explain in English the meaning of the Spanish term "pocho." We assume, without deciding, that Delgadillo's counsel's explanatory phrases refer to the same particular social group of "pochos." See Diaz-Reynoso, 968 F.3d at 1084 (explaining that while "courts cannot rewrite proposed social groups, . . . nothing requires us to analyze them [] mechanistically").
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's affirmance of the IJ's denial of Delgadillo's CAT claim. The record does not compel the conclusion that Delgadillo will more likely than not be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a government official if returned to Mexico. Generalized evidence of violence and crime is insufficient to establish CAT relief if the evidence is not particular to the applicant. See Delgado-Ortiz, 600 F.3d at 1152.
PETITION DENIED.
[*] 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).