FIDEL CRUZ FLETES V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 20-70671 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FIDEL CRUZ FLETES, No. Petitioner, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-70671 Agency No. A098-598-530 MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Immigration Judge Submitted December 2, 2020** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Fidel Cruz Fletes, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) determination under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.31(a) that he did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in Honduras and is thus not entitled to relief from his reinstated removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review an IJ’s negative reasonable fear determination 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). substantial evidence. Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir. 2016). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. To the extent Cruz Fletes raises an imputed political opinion claim, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to consider claims not raised below). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that Cruz Fletes failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of persecution in Honduras on account of a protected ground. 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, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (imputed wealthy returnee social group not cognizable); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (returnee-based social group not cognizable). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that Cruz Fletes failed to demonstrate a reasonable possibility of torture by or with the consent of the government if returned to Honduras. See Andrade-Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836-37 (no reasonable possibility of torture with state action). 2 20-70671 We reject as unsupported by the record Cruz Fletes’ contention that the IJ violated his right to due process. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. The motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 2) and supplemental motion for a stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 8) are otherwise denied. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 3 20-70671
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.
