Jose Echeverria-Valencia v. Todd Blanche

── Jose Echeverria-Valencia v. Todd Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE GUADALUPE ECHEVERRIA- No. 19-72756 VALENCIA, AKA Jose Echeverria, Agency No. A200-909-865 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 18, 2026** San Francisco, California Before: WARDLAW, BEA, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Jose Guadalupe Echeverria-Valencia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under 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). Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. Singh v. Garland, 97 F.4th 597, 602 (9th Cir. 2024). We deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Echeverria-Valencia is not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal.1 “An asylum applicant must demonstrate that a protected ground was ‘at least one central reason’ for [his] persecution,” and “a withholding of removal applicant . . . must prove only that a cognizable protected ground is ‘a reason’ for future persecution.” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1146 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation modified). Echeverria-Valencia listed membership in a particular social group as his protected ground, but his proposed particular social groups of “Americanized men” and “Americanized young men returned to Mexico from the United States” are not cognizable. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151–52 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We conclude that Petitioners’ proposed social group, ‘returning Mexicans from the United States,’ . . . is too broad to qualify as a cognizable social group.”); Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228–29 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that “a discrete subset of Mexicans returning home from the 1 The BIA also denied Echeverria-Valencia’s asylum claim on the alternative ground that it was not timely filed. Because we affirm the BIA on the merits of the asylum claim, we need not reach the timeliness determination. 2 United States: those who have the physical appearance and mannerisms of Americans” is not “a narrowly defined or cognizable particular social group”). Echeverria-Valencia also failed to establish a nexus between membership in the particular social group of “Americanized men” and any future persecution. In testimony before the agency, Echeverria-Valencia expressed fear that “there’s violence everywhere in Mexico,” and “most of the people there live by just stealing people, robbing people.” Echeverria-Valencia also stated that criminals in Mexico kidnap people randomly, “kill innocent people that didn’t have to do nothing with gangs or anything,” and “target whoever, just innocent people or people that just live there.” A generalized fear of being targeted by criminals does not establish nexus to a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622