JUAN MARES-MENDEZ V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 16-72743 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 27 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUAN ANTONIO MARES-MENDEZ, AKA Mares Mario Mares, AKA Mario Antonio Mares-Mendez, AKA Mario Marez Mendez, AKA Mendez Marez, No. 16-72743 Agency No. A200-710-360 MEMORANDUM* Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 7, 2019** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Juan Antonio Mares-Mendez, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for * 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). cancellation of removal, asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1666 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation 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. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. The BIA properly concluded that Mares-Mendez’s 2006 conviction under § 273.5(a) of the California Penal Code constitutes a crime of moral turpitude, rendering him ineligible for cancellation of removal. Ramirez-Contreras v. Sessions, 858 F.3d 1298, 1301 (9th Cir. 2017); Gonzalez-Gonzalez, 390 F.3d 649, 652 (9th Cir. 2004). We may not entertain Mares-Mendez’s collateral attack on his judgment of conviction. Ortega de Robles v. INS, 58 F.3d 1355, 1358 (9th Cir. 1995). The BIA did not err in finding Mares-Mendez failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group and that he did not establish a nexus between fear of persecution and any cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 1 Mares-Mendez does not challenge the BIA’s denial of asylum, so we do not consider it. 2 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that 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 Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2019). Mares-Mendez does not challenge, and therefore waives, the BIA’s determination that he waived the argument that he is a member of the particular social group of “pochos.” See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that an issue not “discussed in the body of the opening brief is deemed waived”). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Mares-Mendez otherwise failed to establish he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’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”). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Mares-Mendez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or 3 with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 4
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.
