Court Opinion

ID: 9393536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-10 16:01:00.652393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:53.881377
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 10 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE LEONARDO RAMIREZ,                          No.    19-71960

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A099-531-493

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM *
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                        Argued and Submitted May 3, 2023
                            San Francisco, California

Before: McKEOWN, BYBEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Jose Leonardo Ramirez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal of the

Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review de novo the BIA’s legal

conclusions, Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 908 (9th Cir. 2018), including

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
whether a “particular social group” is cognizable, Cordoba v. Barr, 962 F.3d 479,

482 (9th Cir. 2020). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. Parada,

902 F.3d at 908. To the extent that the BIA incorporated the IJ’s reasoning, we

review both decisions. Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant in part, deny in part, and remand.

      Ramirez contends that the BIA erred in denying his applications for asylum

and withholding of removal because it improperly rejected his proposed particular

social group of “individuals erroneously perceived as gang members.” The IJ found

that the proposed group “ha[d] not been defined or delineated with particularity” and

lacked an “immutable characteristic” or a “showing that such a group is perceived

as such in the country of El Salvador.” The BIA offered a brief affirmation of the

IJ’s findings and conclusion on this issue, followed by a string of citations that

included Matter of E-A-G-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 591 (B.I.A. 2008).

      The BIA’s cursory analysis and reliance on Matter of E-A-G- conflicts with

our recent decision in Vasquez-Rodriguez v. Garland, 7 F.4th 888, 897 (9th Cir.

2021). There, we overruled Matter of E-A-G- as inconsistent with the requisite

“case-by-case determination” of whether a particular society recognizes a proposed

group. Vasquez-Rodriguez, 7 F.4th at 897–98 (quoting Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750

F.3d 1077, 1084 (9th Cir. 2014)). In Vasquez-Rodriguez’s appeal, the BIA erred by

conflating perceived with actual gang membership and by “adopt[ing] a legal rule

                                         2
categorically barring people erroneously perceived to be gang members from

recognition as a particular social group.” Id. Although the BIA did not have the

benefit of Vasquez-Rodriguez at the time it reviewed Ramirez’s appeal, its decision

replicated the same reversible error. Thus, we grant Ramirez’s petition for review

with respect to his asylum and withholding of removal claims and remand to the

agency to conduct an evidence-based, case-by-case determination of Ramirez’s

potential particular social groups consistent with Vasquez-Rodriguez. Accordingly,

we do not reach the issue of whether Ramirez established past or future persecution.

See Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1143 (9th Cir. 2021).

      Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Ramirez’s CAT claim. “To

be eligible for relief under CAT, an applicant bears the burden of establishing that

she will more likely than not be tortured with the consent or acquiescence of a public

official if removed to her native country.” Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 962 F.3d 1175,

1183 (9th Cir. 2020). When, as here, “an applicant posits multiple theories for why

he would be tortured, the Agency should consider the aggregate risk posed by all

sources and grant CAT relief if the cumulative probability of torture is greater than

50 percent.” Velasquez-Samayoa v. Garland, 49 F.4th 1149, 1155 (9th Cir. 2022).

Ramirez argues that the BIA erred by failing to address all of the evidence in the

record and evaluate the risk of torture in the aggregate. But the BIA need not

“individually identify and discuss every piece of evidence,” Hernandez v. Garland,

                                          3
52 F.4th 757, 770 (9th Cir. 2022), since “we apply a ‘presumption that the BIA did

review the record,’” id. at 771 (quoting Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603

(9th Cir. 2006)). Nonetheless, the BIA did address Ramirez’s multiple grounds for

CAT relief. Ramirez has not overcome the required presumption or proffered

probative evidence that the violence that he fears would amount to torture. Nor has

Ramirez demonstrated that the IJ’s multi-factor analysis of his ability to relocate in

El Salvador was insufficient. Thus, we affirm the BIA’s denial of Ramirez’s CAT

claim.

         PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part; and
         REMANDED.

         Each party shall bear its own costs on this petition for review.

                                            4