N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
YESSIC A TIC AS-GUILLEN,

Pe t i tione r,
v. M ATTHEW

G. W H ITAKER , Ac t ing Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 16-72981 Age n c y No. A202-002-399
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 16, 2018 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER

and WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KOR M AN, ** Distric t Judge
. Afte r be i n g se xua lly a ssa ulte d in he r hom e c ountry of El Sa lva d or, pe titione r Ye ssic a Tic a s-Guille n fle d to theUnite d State s, whe re she a pplie d for a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture



# FIL ED
N OV 30 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Edwa rd R . Korm an, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.(“ C AT” ). An Im m igration Judge(“ IJ” ) de nie d he r a pplic ations. TheB oa

rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s a ffirm e d, upholding the re je c tion of Tic a s -Guille n’ s a sy lum
and withholding c la im s on the IJ’ s sta te d ground tha

t he r propose d soc i a l group –

“ wom e n in El Sa lva dor” – wa s “

just too broad.” B oth pa rtie s now a gre e tha

t we m ust re m and for the B o ard to c onside r whe the r this propose d soc ia l group is c ogniz a ble in light of our pre c e de nt. The IJ’ s ground for de nia l – tha

t the propose d soc ia l group wa s “ just too broad” to sa

tisfy the “pa rtic ula rity ” re quire m e n t

– c annot sta

n d. Unde r our la

w, ge n de r an d
nationa lity

c an form a pa rtic ula r soc ia l group. Se e Pe rdomo v . Holde r , 611 F.3d 662, 669 (9th C ir. 2010) (re ve rsing B oa rd’ s finding tha

t “ a ll wom e n in Gua

te m a la ” is a n ove rly broa d a nd inte rna lly

dive rse group; wa

rning tha t the “ siz e and bre a dth of a group a lone doe s not pre c l ude [it] from qua lify ing a s [a

pa rtic ula r] soc i a l group” ); se e also Mohammed v . Gonzale s , 400 F.3d 785, 797 (9th C ir. 2005) (“ [T] he re c ognition tha

t girls or wom e n of a

pa rtic ula r c la n or na tiona lity [,] or e ve n in som e c irc um sta

nc e s fe m a le s in ge ne ra l[,] m a y c o nstitute a

soc i a l group is sim

ply
a logic a l a pplic ation of our la

w .” ) (inte rna l pa

re nthe se s om itte d). Form e r Attorne y

Ge ne ra l Se ssions’ s re c e nt opinion c la rifie s wha t is re quire d to be c onside re d a

“ pa rtic ula r soc i a l group.” Se e Matte r of A-B- , 27 I. & N. De c . 316 (June 11, 2018). Theopinion e xpla ins tha t this is a “ re c urring que stion in
2a sy lum la

w” for whic h the “ sta

n da rd ha s e volve d,” and e m

pha siz e s tha

t “ [w] he n
c onfronte d with a sy lum

c a se s ba se d

on purporte d m e m

be rship in a

pa rtic u la r soc ia l group, the B oa

rd . . . m ust a na ly z e the re quire m e n ts a s se t forth in this opinion, whic h re sta

te s a nd whe re a

ppropria te , e la b orate s upon, th[ose ] re quire m e nts.” Id.
at 318-19. W e the re fore grant the pe tition a s to Tic a s -Guille n’ s withholding a nd a sy l um
c la im s a nd, c onsiste nt with the gove rnm e nt’ s position, rem and to the B oa rd to furthe r ana ly z e (1) whe the r Tic a s-Guille n’ s propose d soc ia l group is c ogniz a ble ;
and (2) whe the r he r soc ia l group wa s “ a re a son” for he r pe rse c ution. Se e BarajasRome ro v . Ly nc h , 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th C ir. 2017) (c la rify ing a pplic ants ne e d only prove tha t the ir prote c t e d sta

tus wa s “ a re a son,” not “ one c e ntra l re a son,” for the i r pe rse c ution); se e also Pe rdomo , 611 F.3d a t 669 (re m a

n ding for simi la

r
re a s ons); Gonzale

z -Solare s v . W hitak e r , No.16-72740, 2018 W L 5876986, a

t *2 (9th C ir. Nov. 8, 2018) (sa m e ); Silv e stre -Me n doza v . Se

s sions , 729 F. App’ x 597, 598-99 (9th C ir. 2018) (sa m e ). We d en y r el i ef as t o t h e CA T cl ai m . A l t h ou g h T icas
- G u i l l en ar gu es t h at t h e S al v ad o r i an g o v er n m en t h as b een g en er al l y i n ef f ect i v e i n p r ev en t in g s ex u al
as s au l t s ag ai n st w o m en , w e h av e p o i n t ed o u t t h att h e g o v er n m en t “ d o es n ot acq u ies ce i n t h e t o r tu r e o f i t s ci t i zen s m er el y b ecau s e i t i s aw ar e of t o r tu r e b u t 3p o w er l es s t o s t o p i t . ” G a r ci a - M i l ia n v. H o ld er , 7 5 5 F
. 3 d1 0 2 6 , 1 0 34 ( 9 t h Ci r . 2 0 1 4 ) ( qu o t i n g M

ou a wa d v. G o n z a l es , 4 8 5 F .3 d 4 0 5 , 4 1 3 ( 8 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 7 ) )
. P ETI TI ON F ORR EVI EW GR A N TED i n p a rt ; D EN I ED i n p a rt ; R EMA N D ED .

4