Court Opinion

ID: 9374660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 18:01:03.024626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:52.174327
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         FEB 23 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELSI GUADALUPE QUINTEROS DE                     No.    17-72795
CORADO; FRANCISCO MIGUEL
CORADO-QUINTEROS,                               Agency Nos.       A202-084-051
                                                                  A202-086-451
                Petitioners,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                           Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Elsi Guadalupe Quinteros De Corado and Francisco Miguel Corado-

Quinteros, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an

      *
             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).
immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 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.

      The BIA did not err in concluding that petitioners failed to establish

membership in cognizable particular social groups. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d

1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (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))). As to Corado-Quinteros, the agency

properly found that his proposed particular social group lacked particularity. See

Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The particularity element

requires characteristics that provide a clear benchmark for determining who falls

within the group,” and “[t]he group must also be discrete and have definable

boundaries—it must not be amorphous, overbroad, diffuse, or subjective.” (internal

                                          2                                      17-72795
quotation marks and citations omitted)); see also Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542

F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008) (“young men in El Salvador resisting gang

violence” too loosely defined to meet particularity requirement), abrogated on

other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en

banc). As to Quinteros De Corado, substantial evidence supports the agency’s

determination that she failed to establish her proposed social group is socially

distinct. See Conde Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1243 (proposed social group lacked

social distinction because the record failed to establish its members are perceived

or recognized as a group by the society in question).

       We do not address petitioners’ contentions as to whether they established an

objectively reasonable fear of future persecution because the BIA did not deny

relief on these grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th

Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds

relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

       Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

       Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

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

torture).

                                          3                                    17-72795
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                  4                                  17-72795