                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAR 6 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FREDY MATUS-BORGES, AKA Delio                   No.    16-70860
May-Cab,
                                                Agency No. A091-556-959
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                              Submitted March 3, 2020**

Before:      MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

      Fredy Matus-Borges, 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 decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have


      *
             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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v.

Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (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. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755

F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

      The agency did not err in finding that Matus-Borges failed to establish

membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125,

1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular social

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. Holder, 816

F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016) (concluding “imputed wealthy Americans”

returning to Mexico did not constitute a particular social group); Delgado-Ortiz v.

Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151-52 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding “returning Mexicans

from the United States” did not constitute a particular social group). Thus, Matus-

Borges’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

                                         2                                       16-70860
      In light of this disposition, we do not reach Matus-Borges’ remaining

contentions regarding his asylum and withholding of removal claims. See

Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are

not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Matus-Borges failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

      Matus-Borges establishes no error in the agency’s denial of administrative

closure under the factors applicable at the time of the BIA’s decision. See

Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 891 (9th Cir. 2018).

      Finally, we reject Matus-Borges’ claim that the agency violated his Fifth and

Eighth Amendment due process rights. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032,

1039 (1984) (holding that “deportation is not to punish past transgressions but

rather to put an end to a continuing violation of the immigration laws.”); see also

Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a

due process claim).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                          3                                   16-70860
