NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROSA MELIDA PINEDA

- MONROY,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 15

- 73527 Agency No. A206

- 783

- 615

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 12, 2022 * *
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE , Circuit Judges.
Rosa Melida Pineda

- Monroy , a native and citizen of El Salvador , petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) deci sion denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

* 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

JUL 19 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 15

- 73527

(“C AT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, including determinations regarding social
distinction. Conde Quevedo v. Barr , 947 F.3d 1238, 1241

- 42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo questions of law, including whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Id

. We deny the petition for review

. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Pineda

Monroy failed to establish her proposed social group is socially distinct. See id. at 1243 (petitioner’s proposed social group was not cognizable because of the absence of society

- specif ic evidence of social distinction). Thus, the BIA did not err in concluding that Pineda

- Monroy did not establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membersh ip 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 Mat ter of M

- E

- V

- G

- , 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014) )). The BIA did not err in declining to consider Pineda

- Monroy’s arguments regarding imputed political opinion and the proposed particular social groups of “former business owners” and “witness against gang members who robbed and3 15

- 73527

beat her” that were raised for the first time to the BIA. See Honcharov v. Barr , 924 F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019) (BIA did not err in declining to consider argument raised for the first time on appeal)

. W e do not consider these claims
because the BIA did not decide the issue s
. See Santiago

- Rodriguez v. Holder , 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited to the grounds relied on by the BIA). Thus, Pineda

- Monroy’s asylum and withholding of removal clai ms fail. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Pineda

- Monroy failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador.
See Garcia

- Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1033

- 35 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner did not establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.