Court Opinion

ID: 9389424
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 17:01:28.137416+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:26.944555
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1975      Doc: 28         Filed: 04/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1975

        DARWIN ALEXANDER FLORES-CLAROS,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: April 20, 2023                                         Decided: April 24, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: William J. Vasquez, VASQUEZ LAW FIRM, PLLC, Smithfield, North
        Carolina, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
        Jessica A. Dawgert, Senior Litigation Counsel, Alanna Thanh Duong, Office of
        Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
        Washington, D.C. for Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1975      Doc: 28         Filed: 04/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Darwin Alexander Flores-Claros, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for

        review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the

        immigration judge’s oral decision denying Flores-Claros’ applications for asylum and

        withholding of removal. ∗ We deny the petition for review.

               We have considered the parties’ arguments in conjunction with the administrative

        record and the relevant authorities, including our recent holding in Morales v. Garland, 51

        F.4th 553, 556-58 (4th Cir. 2022) (affirming agency’s ruling that petitioner’s advanced

        particular social group of “Salvadorean women who are witnesses to gang criminal activity

        and targeted because they filed a police report” failed on both the particularity and social

        distinction requirements for a cognizable “particular social group”). Having reviewed the

        issues de novo, see Morales, 51 F.4th 557, we discern no error in the agency’s holding that

        the particular social group advanced by Flores-Claros—“witnesses of serious crime in El

        Salvador who can identify and are known to the perpetrators of the crime”—was not legally

        cognizable. Specifically, we agree that Flores-Claros’ attempts to limit the broader group

        of “witnesses to serious crime” failed to “sharpen the boundary lines” for group inclusion

        so as to render it sufficiently particular, id., and that the proposed group was, at most,

               ∗
                 Flores-Claros does not challenge the denial of his request for protection under the
        Convention Against Torture (CAT). Accordingly, this issue is waived. See Fed. R. App.
        P. 28(a)(8)(A); Cortez-Mendez v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 205, 208 (4th Cir. 2019) (explaining
        that petitioner’s failure to address the denial of CAT relief waives the issue).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1975         Doc: 28      Filed: 04/24/2023    Pg: 3 of 3

        distinct only from the perspective of the alleged persecutors, not within Salvadorean

        society at large, id. at 557-58.

               Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See In re Flores-Claros (B.I.A.

        Aug. 15, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

        are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                             PETITION DENIED

                                                    3