NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BLANCA ESTELA BLANCO-TESPAN; et 

al., 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 18-71502 

Agency Nos. A209-280-840 

A209-280-839 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 4, 2020**

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

Blanca Estela Blanco-Tespan and her minor son, natives and citizens of El 

Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 

dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their 

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

* 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).

FILED

FEB 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 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. 

Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the 

petition for review.

The agency did not err in finding that the proposed social group of 

“Salvadoran males who resisted M18 gang recruitment multiple times” was not 

cognizable. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to 

demonstrate membership in a particular 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 Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 744-46 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(holding young men who resist gang violence in El Salvador is not a particular 

social group), abrogated in part by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 

1093 (9th Cir. 2013). 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners

failed to establish they were or would be persecuted in El Salvador on account of a 
3 

protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even 

if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still 

show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such 

group”); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s 

“desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random 

violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, 

petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

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

petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tortured by or with 

the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See 

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

558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture).

Petitioners’ contention that the agency failed to consider evidence is 

unpersuasive. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.