Mariana Miranda-Sequeira v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIANA THAMARA MIRANDA- No. 20-73618
SEQUEIRA,
Agency No. A077-885-437
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Mariana Thamara Miranda-Sequeira petitions for review of a final order of
removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) on November 16,
*
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).
2020. Because the facts are known to the parties, we repeat them only as necessary
to explain our decision. We deny the petition for review.
I
Miranda-Sequeira argues that the IJ and BIA violated her due process rights
because the IJ’s oral decision made several stray references to Guatemala, rather
than her country of origin, Nicaragua. To prevail on a due process challenge to
deportation proceedings, Miranda-Sequeira must show (1) error and (2) substantial
prejudice. Lata v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000). Miranda-Sequeria has
failed to show the latter.
The IJ’s decision made over 50 references to Nicaragua and refers to
Nicaragua on every substantive point. Miranda-Sequeira does not point to any
evidence in the record concerning Nicaragua that the IJ failed to consider. In sum,
Miranda-Sequeira has failed to demonstrate that the IJ’s few mistakes in identifying
the county of origin, or the BIA’s silence in reviewing the IJ’s decision, affected the
outcome of her case.
II
Miranda-Sequeira argues that the agency erred by finding her proposed social
group was not cognizable. An applicant for withholding of removal seeking relief
based on “‘membership in a particular social group’ must establish that the group is
(1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic,
2
(2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in
question.” Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). The applicant must
also show her feared persecution is on account of her particular social group. Reyes
v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1136 (9th Cir. 2016).
Miranda-Sequeira did not establish that her proposed social group was defined
with sufficient particularity or socially distinct. To satisfy the particularity
requirement, the particular social group in question must have “well-defined
boundaries” and be “‘recognizable’ as a discrete group by others in the society.”
Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 232, 239 (BIA 2014). Miranda-Sequeira
failed to present evidence to support a finding that Nicaraguan society recognizes
“Nicaraguan women with tattoos returning back to Nicaragua after living in the
United States” as a discrete group.
Social distinction requires evidence that the proposed social group is
“perceived as a group by society.” Id. at 240. Miranda-Sequeira has not presented
evidence to support a finding that Nicaraguan society perceives “Nicaraguan women
with tattoos returning back to Nicaragua after living in the United States” as a
distinct social group.
III
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3