EFRAIN RODRIGUEZ-NAVA V. JEFFERSON SESSIONS, No. 15-73524 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 14 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EFRAIN RODRIGUEZ-NAVA, Petitioner, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 15-73524 Agency No. A092-261-705 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 9, 2017** Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Efrain Rodriguez-Nava, 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 * 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). questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the 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. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. The agency did not err in finding Rodriguez-Nava failed to establish a cognizable social group. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1133-37 (9th Cir. 2016) (according deference to the BIA’s articulation of its “particularity” and “social distinction” requirements). Thus, Rodriguez-Nava’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. In light of this conclusion, we do not reach Rodriguez-Nava’s remaining contentions raised in his opening brief. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 2 15-73524

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.