JOSE RAMOS-RAMOS V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 16-71819 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 16 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE LUIS RAMOS-RAMOS, Petitioner, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 16-71819 Agency No. A205-975-818 MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 9, 2020** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Jose Luis Ramos-Ramos, 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, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the * 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). agency’s factual findings, including determinations regarding social distinction. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). 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. Id. We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Ramos-Ramos failed to demonstrate the harm he experienced or fears in Mexico was or would be on account of his family membership or an imputed political opinion. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such group”); Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 2009) (finding a political opinion claim failed where petitioner did not present sufficient evidence of political or ideological opposition to the gang’s ideals or that the gang imputed a particular political belief to the petitioner). The agency did not err in finding that Ramos-Ramos’ gang-related and returnee-based proposed social groups are not cognizable. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order 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 16-71819 Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also RamirezMunoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding that “imputed wealthy Americans” returning to Mexico does not constitute a particular social group). Thus, Ramos-Ramos’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Ramos-Ramos does not challenge the agency’s determination that he failed to establish eligibility for CAT relief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, we deny the petition for review as to RamosRamos’ CAT claim. We reject as unsupported by the record Ramos-Ramos’ contentions that the agency ignored evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of his claims. As stated in the court’s August 30, 2016 order, the temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 16-71819
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.
