OCADIZ MENA v. BARR (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Luis Ocadiz-Mena (“Ocadiz-Mena”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition.

Whether a group constitutes a “particular social group” is a question of law that we review de novo, Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 665 (9th Cir. 2010), but we defer to the BIA’s interpretation of 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. See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016).

The BIA did not err in finding that Ocadiz-Mena has not established membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining cognizability standard) (citing Matter of M-E-G-V-, 26 I & N Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014)). Ocadiz-Mena has not established that persons who have lived in the United States or who come from a wealthy family would be perceived by society as a particular social group. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (returnees from the United States to Mexico is not a particular social group); Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (imputed wealthy returnees from the United States is not a particular social group). Ocadiz-Mena also has not established that he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (petitioner’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Ocadiz-Mena’s withholding of removal claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.