Court Opinion

ID: 9557986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:01:21.75569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:03.329269
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 21 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA DEL TRANSITO MORAN-                       No.    20-71622
MARINERO; YOSELIN GABRIELA
REINA-MORAN,                                    Agency Nos.       A206-418-975
                                                                  A206-418-976
                Petitioners,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                           Submitted August 17, 2023**
                              Pasadena, California

Before: WARDLAW, CHRISTEN, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

      Maria Moran-Marinero (Petitioner) and her now-adult daughter, natives and

citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

order dismissing Petitioner’s appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying

      *
             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).
her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (CAT). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Conde

Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for

review.

      1. Petitioner has not established that she is entitled to asylum. “To qualify

for asylum, an alien must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the

alien’s application for asylum was ‘filed within 1 year after the date of the alien’s

arrival in the United States.’” Al Ramahi v. Holder, 725 F.3d 1133, 1134–35 (9th

Cir. 2013) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B)). An alien can obtain an exemption

from the 1-year time bar by showing either (1) “changed circumstances” affecting

his eligibility; or (2) “extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing an

application.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(D). In such cases, the alien must still “file an

asylum application within a reasonable period.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(ii), (a)(5).

      Petitioner last entered the United States in March 2014 and filed her asylum

application in December 2016. The agency concluded that Petitioner’s almost

three-year delay in applying for asylum was not reasonable. Petitioner did not

contest this determination and has therefore waived any challenge to it. Corro-

Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not raised in

opening brief are waived).

                                           2
      2. The agency’s denial of Petitioner’s application for withholding of removal

is supported by substantial evidence. The record does not demonstrate that

Petitioner’s proposed group – Salvadoran merchants or businesswomen at risk of

harm from gangs – is “composed of members who share a common immutable

characteristic,” or that Salvadoran society perceives business owners as a distinct

social group. See Macedo Templos v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 877, 882 (9th Cir. 2021)

(quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014)). Thus,

Petitioner failed to establish that her proposed social group is cognizable. See id.

at 882–83.

      3. Finally, substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. Petitioner

has not shown past harm rising to the level of torture, and the agency reasonably

concluded that her fear of torture by or with the acquiescence of public officials is

speculative. Therefore, the record does not compel the conclusion that Petitioner

satisfied her burden for CAT protection. See Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d

1175, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that an applicant seeking relief under the CAT

must establish that she “will more likely than not be tortured with the consent or

acquiescence of a public official if removed to her native country”).

      PETITION DENIED. The temporary stay of removal remains in place

until the mandate issues. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.

                                          3