Opinion
No. 18-72447
12-08-2020
IGNACIO GALVAN-INCLAN, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Agency No. A087-991-730 MEMORANDUM On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Ignacio Galvan-Inclan, 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 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 interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in concluding that Galvan-Inclan did not 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 Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding "imputed wealthy Americans" returning to Mexico did not constitute a particular social group); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding "returning Mexicans from the United States" did not constitute a particular social group). Thus, Galvan-Inclan's withholding of removal claim fails.
Galvan-Inclan's request to remand for termination of proceedings, set forth in his opening brief, is denied. See Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 895 (9th Cir. 2020) (omission of certain information from a notice to appear can be cured for jurisdictional purposes by later hearing notice).
As stated in the court's September 18, 2018 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.