Court Opinion

ID: 9910503
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-15 19:00:50.187777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:07.130047
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 15 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EVA NINETH MEJIA RAMIREZ DE                     No. 22-1650
SANCHEZ; KATHERINE SANCHEZ                      Agency Nos.
MEJIA; GABRIELA GUADALUPE                       A212-901-324
SANCHEZ MEJIA,                                  A212-901-325
                                                A212-901-328
             Petitioners,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted December 13, 2023**
                                Pasadena, California

Before: WALLACH,*** CHRISTEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      Eva Nineth Mejia Ramirez De Sanchez and her two minor daughters, natives

      *
             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).
      ***
             The Honorable Evan J. Wallach, United States Senior Circuit Judge
for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing their appeal of an immigration judge’s order

denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We “review legal conclusions de

novo” and “review for substantial evidence factual findings underlying the BIA’s

determination that a petitioner is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal,

or CAT relief.” Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022).

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and recite them only as necessary.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition.

      Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of

removal based on Mejia Ramirez De Sanchez’s failure to establish her family’s

membership in her first proposed particular social group (PSG)—Guatemalan

family fleeing gang violence and extortion for refusing to pay rent money—

because she did not know whether her extortionists were gang members. See

Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1132 n.3 (9th Cir. 2016) (“An asylum or

withholding applicant’s burden includes . . . demonstrating . . . his membership in

[the proposed] particular social group . . . .” (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted)). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Mejia

Ramirez De Sanchez’s second proposed PSG—Guatemalan witness of a crime

fleeing gang threats for being a potential witness in court against said gang

                                         2                                    22-1650
members—lacks particularity because it “is not ‘discrete’ and lacks ‘definable

boundaries.’” Aguilar-Osorio v. Garland, 991 F.3d 997, 999 (9th Cir. 2021)

(quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 239 (BIA 2014)) (affirming

agency’s conclusion that a proposed group of “witnesses who . . . could testify

against gang members based upon what they witnessed” was not cognizable

(omission in original)).

      Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief

because Mejia Ramirez De Sanchez did not show the involvement or acquiescence

of Guatemalan public officials in the harm she suffered or may suffer in the future.

See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[A] general

ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate and prevent crime will not

suffice to show acquiescence.” (citing Garcia–Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026,

1034 (9th Cir. 2013))).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                        3                                  22-1650