Antonio Cruz-Arredondo v. Merrick Garland, 20-71039

Cruz, a Mexican national, petitioned for review after the BIA denied cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
He had a 2000 California drug possession conviction with a deferred judgment; in January 2001 he failed to complete the court-ordered diversion program.
Because he violated the diversion condition, the conviction could not be expunged under the Federal First Offender Act (FFOA), and the BIA treated it as a disqualifying controlled-substance conviction for cancellation of removal.
For withholding, Cruz claimed membership in two particular social groups (PSGs): (1) people whose family members were killed by cartels, and (2) people who have defied cartels.
Factual background: Cruz’s family resisted the Lopez/Sinaloa cartel; his cousin Marco was murdered, his brother Armando disappeared after alleged theft, and Cruz was threatened; Cruz left for the U.S. in 1996; his sister lives two hours away and has not been harmed. Cruz offered little current, country-specific evidence that cartel actors would target him.
The Ninth Circuit denied the petition, concluding the BIA’s findings were supported by substantial evidence on all three claims.

Issue	Cruz's Argument	Government/BIA's Argument	Held
Eligibility for cancellation of removal	Deferred judgment should not count as a qualifying conviction because state disposition could be treated like an expunged pre-2011 conviction	Deferred judgment is a conviction under 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(2)(A) because Cruz violated probation/diversion, so FFOA expungement unavailable	Denied — conviction is a disqualifying controlled-substance conviction; Cruz ineligible for cancellation
Withholding of removal (particular social group)	He belongs to PSGs of people whose relatives were killed by cartels and people who defied cartels, so he faces persecution	Groups lack social distinction and particularity; Cruz produced little evidence how society views these groups	Denied — substantial evidence that PSGs do not meet particularity/social-distinction requirements
Protection under CAT	Cartel members hold grudges and are likely to locate and torture/kill him on return	Cruz failed to show each step in the chain (location, recognition, remembered grudge, torture) is more likely than not	Denied — substantial evidence supports BIA conclusion that torture is not more likely than not

Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 2000) (framework for treating certain expunged state convictions as non-disqualifying under FFOA)
Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, 646 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2011) (prospective overruling aspects of prior precedent)
Estrada v. Holder, 560 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2009) (FFOA expungement unavailable when probation/diversion conditions are violated)
Mellouli v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 1980 (2015) (addressed interpretation of criminal convictions in immigration context)
Diaz-Torres v. Barr, 963 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2020) (social-distinction requirement for PSGs)
Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2021) (rejection of similarly defined PSGs for lack of particularity/social distinction)
Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized country violence insufficient to establish CAT eligibility)