N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SANDR A ARELY PENA FLOR

ES; JOSUE LEONEL M ERR OQUIN PENA,

Pe t i tione rs,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 19-73185 Age n c y Nos. A208-267-639

A208-267-640
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 Subm itte d

June 14, 2022 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d C HR ISTEN, C i rc uit Judge s, a nd SIM ON, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED JUN 16 2022 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 pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble M ic ha e l H. Sim on, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ore g o n, sitting by de signa tion.Pe titione r Sandra Are ly Pe na Flore s (Pe na

Flore s) a nd he r son Josue Le one l M e rroquin Pe na

(Josue ), native s a

nd c itiz e ns of El Sa lva dor, se e k re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (B IA) fina l orde r a ffirm ing the Im m igration Judge ’ s (IJ) de nia l of Pe n a Flore s’ s a

pplic ation for a sy lum , withholding of
re m ova l, a

nd prote c tion pursua

nt to theC onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C AT). Josue
se e k s de rivative re lie f through Pe na Flore s’ s c la im s. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a

nd we de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. B e c a use the pa rtie s are fam ilia

r with thefa c ts, we do not re c ite the m he re . Our re vie w is c onfine d to theB IA’ s de c ision e xc e pt whe re the B IA a dopts the IJ’ s de c ision. Se e Gue rra v . Barr , 974 F.3d 909, 911 (9th C ir. 2020). W e re vie w de novo que stions of la w, a nd we re vie w the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings for substa ntia l e vide nc e . Se e Abe bev . Gonzale s , 432 F.3d 1037, 1039–40 (9th C ir. 2005). Although the

IJ found Pe na

Flore s not c re dible , the B IA a ssum e d Pe na Flore s ’ s c re dibility

and dismisse d he r c la im s on othe r grounds. W e too a s sum e he r c re d ibility

for purpose s of our re vie w. 1. Pe na Flore s sought a s y lum

an d withholding of re

m ova l ba se d on the propose d pa rtic ula r soc ia l group of “ Sa l va dora n m othe rs re fusing to provide
c ontrol a nd c ustody

of the i r c hildre n to ga

ngs.” As a

n initia l m atte r, Pe n a Flore s’ s te stim ony sugge s ts ga

ng m e m be rs ta rge te d he r at

he r hom e ba se d on ge ne ra liz e d
2c rim ina l m o tive s. S e e Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C ir. 2010)). B ut
a ssum ing she c ould sa

tisfy the ne xus re quire m e nt, Pe na Flore s bore the burde n to de m onstra

te a c ogniz a b l e pa rtic ula r soc ia l group by

showing tha

t the group is “ (1)
c om pose d of m e m

be rs who sha

re a c om m on im m uta b le c ha ra c te ristic , (2) de fine d with pa rtic ula rity , a n d (3) soc ia lly

distinc t within the

soc ie t y in que stion.” Matte r of M-E-V-G- , 26 I. & N. De c . 227, 237 (B IA 2014). Pe na Flore s c onte nds he r propose d group sa tisfie s the pa

rtic ula rity
re quire m e nt be c a

use she “ is a

fam ily m e m be r and it is c le a

rly e vide nt through blood tie s be ing the pa

re nt of he r son, fa

m ily ha s de fina

b le bounda

rie s tha t a re c le ar an d c an be known pre c ise ly .” “ Partic ula rity ” re quire s the group to “ be de fine d by

c h ara c t e ristic s tha

t provide a

c le ar be nc hm ark for de te rm ining who fa lls within thegroup.” Id. at 239; se e also Diaz-Re y noso v . Barr , 968 F.3d 1070, 1077 (9th C ir. 2020). “ The ultim ate que stion is whethe r a group ‘ c an a c c urate ly

be de sc ribe d in a

m anne r suffic ie ntly

distinc t tha

t the group would be

re c ogniz e d, in the s oc ie t y in que stion, a s a

disc re te c la ss of pe rsons.’ ” He nrique z-Riv as v . Holde r , 707 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba nc ) (quoting Matte r of S-E-G- , 24 I. & N. De c . 579, 584 (B IA 2008)). Pe na Flore s’ s propose d group is a rgua bly distinc t from

the ty pe of gangre c ruitm e nt groups tha

t our c ourt ha s re

je c t e d in othe r c a se s. S

e e , e .g. , Barrios v
. 3Holde r , 581 F.3d 849, 854–55 (9th C i r. 2009) (re je c ting thepropose d group of y oung m e n in Gua

te m a la who a re ta rge te d for ga n g m e m be rship but re fuse to join). Howe ve r, Pe na

Flore s doe s not offe r any e vide nc e tha

t he r a lle ge d pe rse c utors pe rc e ive the c olle c t ion of individua ls she ide ntifie s a s a

distinc t group, a

n d the de fining c ha

ra c te ristic s of the propose d group a re be tte r de sc ribe d a s a

m o rphous. He nrique z-Riv as , 707 F.3d a

t 1091 (“ [I] t is re le va

nt in c onside ring whe t

he r a group’ s bounda

rie s a re so a m orphous tha

t, in pra c tic e , the pe rse c utor doe s not
c onside r it a group.” ). Although we have re c ogniz e d tha

t “ in som e c i rc um sta

nc e s , a fam ily c onstitute s a soc ia l group,” Molina-Estrada v. I.N .S. , 293 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th C ir. 2002), thegroup tha t Pe na Flore s propose d is tie d only to a fam ilia l
re lationship, not to a

spe c ific fam ily

ta rge t e d by the ga ng be c auseof the ir fam ily
m e m b e rship, se e

, e . g. , P arada v . Se

ssions , 902 F.3d 901, 910 (9th C ir. 2018) (“ FM LN m e m

be rs spe c ific a lly

sought out the

‘ pa rtic ula r soc ia l group’ of [pe t itione r’ s] fam ily , e ve n shouting the [pe titione r’ s ] fam ily nam e a s the gue rrilla s e nte re d the fam ily ’ s villa ge .” ). Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t Pe na Flore s’ s propose d pa rtic ula r soc ia l group doe s not sa tisfy the pa rtic u l arity re quire m e nt, a

nd the re fore we ne e d not re a c h the othe r e l e m e nts of he r propose d group or he r ne xus

4argum e nts. W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w a s to Pe na Flore s ’ s a sy lum

and withholding of rem o v a l c la im s. 2. Pe na Flore s a lso c ha lle nge s the B IA’ s dismissa l of he r C AT c la im . To qua lify for prote c tion pursua

nt to C A T, a

n a pplic an t be a

rs the burde n of
e sta blishing “ it is m ore like l y tha n not tha t [she ] . . . would be torture d” with the
c onse n t or a c quie s c e nc e of the gove rnm e nt if re turne d to he r hom e c ountry . 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2); se e also Garc ia-Milian v
. Holde r , 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th C ir. 2014). Pe n a

Flore s subm itte d c ountry c onditions ev ide nc e de s c ribing wide spre a d ga

ng viole nc e in El Sa lva dor, a nd sugge sting som e c orruption be twe e n ga ngs a nd public offic i a ls. She a lso te stifie d tha t she did not se e k he l p from polic e in El Sa l va dor be c a

u se she b e lie ve s the y

are working with the

ga ngs a nd would not do a nything to he lp. B ut substa ntia l e vide n c e still supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion that Pe na Flore s fa i le d to de m onstra t e the re quisitelike lihood tha t she would be torture d a nd tha t Sa lva d o ran o ffic ia ls would c onse nt or a c quie s c e to tha t torture . Ac c ordingly , we de ny

the pe t ition for re vie w a s to Pe na Flore s’ s C A T c la im
. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

5