Court Opinion

ID: 4655083
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-01-27 21:00:47.83473+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:59:07.867802
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 27 2021
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WENDY LISSETH HERRERA-DE                         No.   19-71914
PEREZ,
                                                 Agency No. A202-073-098
                Petitioner,

 v.                                              MEMORANDUM*

ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted January 20, 2021**

Before:      McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

             Wendy Lisseth Herrera de Perez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

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

application 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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v.

Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo the legal question

of 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. at1241-42. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for

review.

      We lack jurisdiction to consider Herrera de Perez’s humanitarian asylum

claim. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks

jurisdiction to review claims not presented below).

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Herrera de

Perez failed to establish that she was or would be persecuted on account of a

protected ground, including proposed particular social groups based on her family

membership and status as a woman not protected by the government. 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 [her] 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”).

                                          2                                     19-71914
      The agency did not err in concluding that Herrera de Perez did not establish

membership in a cognizable particular social group based on his status as a

perceived wealthy returnee. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir.

2016) (in order 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))).

      Thus, Herrera de Perez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

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

Herrera de Perez failed to show it is more likely than not she 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).

      We reject as unsupported by the record Herrera de Perez’s contentions that

the agency violated her right to due process or otherwise erred in its analysis of her

claims.

      As stated in the court’s October 7, 2020 order, the temporary stay of removal

remains in place until issuance of the mandate.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

                                          3                                    19-71914