Fredy Soriano-Cruz v. Merrick Garland, 15-73557

Fredy Soriano-Cruz petitioned for review of the BIA’s dismissal of his appeal from an IJ order denying withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection; this court has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Soriano-Cruz claimed membership in the proposed social group “Americanized Mexicans returning to Mexico,” asserting he would be targeted for appearing American.
The IJ and BIA found the proposed group not cognizable for lack of particularity and social distinction and concluded Soriano-Cruz failed to show he would be recognized or targeted on account of that group.
The agency relied on Ninth Circuit precedent rejecting similar groups and found Soriano-Cruz introduced no evidence of an innate characteristic or voluntary association linking group members.
Soriano-Cruz argued the BIA’s statement that a protected ground must be “one central reason” for persecution (per Barajas-Romero) required remand; the court held any error was harmless because he failed to show persecution on account of a protected ground.
The agency also denied CAT relief, finding country conditions and lack of individualized risk established that torture by actors with government acquiescence was not more likely than not; the court upheld that determination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Cognizability of proposed social group ("Americanized Mexicans returning to Mexico")	Group is a protected social group; Soriano-Cruz would be targeted for appearing American.	Group lacks particularity and social distinction; no evidence members share an innate trait or voluntary association; not recognized/targeted in Mexico.	Substantial evidence supports agency; group not cognizable.
Whether BIA’s "one central reason" language requires remand under Barajas-Romero	BIA’s misstated standard requires remand for reconsideration.	Any error was harmless because petitioner failed to show persecution on account of a protected ground.	No remand; error harmless.
CAT claim: likelihood of torture with government acquiescence	Soriano-Cruz would more likely than not be tortured if returned.	Record country conditions show steps against corruption/organized crime and no evidence petitioner would be singled out; no likelihood of torture with acquiescence.	Substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief.

Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejecting the proposed social group “returning Mexicans from the United States”)
Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 2016) (rejecting the proposed social group of those returning to Mexico who appear to be American)
Henriquez–Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (recognizing that, in some circumstances, gang-victim categories may be particularized)
Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017) (BIA’s “one central reason” phrasing is incorrect for withholding standard)
Khudaverdyan v. Holder, 778 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2015) (harmless-error analysis where no showing of persecution on account of a protected ground)
Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2009) (CAT requires some reason to think the petitioner is likely to be tortured by the feared actors)