Elsi Quinteros De Corado v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ELSI GUADALUPE QUINTEROS DE No. 17-72795
CORADO; FRANCISCO MIGUEL
CORADO-QUINTEROS, Agency Nos. A202-084-051
A202-086-451
Petitioners,
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**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Elsi Guadalupe Quinteros De Corado and Francisco Miguel Corado-
Quinteros, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an
*
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).
immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, including determinations regarding social distinction.
Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de
novo questions of law, including 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. We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in concluding that petitioners failed to establish
membership in cognizable particular social groups. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d
1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (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))). As to Corado-Quinteros, the agency
properly found that his proposed particular social group lacked particularity. See
Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The particularity element
requires characteristics that provide a clear benchmark for determining who falls
within the group,” and “[t]he group must also be discrete and have definable
boundaries—it must not be amorphous, overbroad, diffuse, or subjective.” (internal
2 17-72795
quotation marks and citations omitted)); see also Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542
F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008) (“young men in El Salvador resisting gang
violence” too loosely defined to meet particularity requirement), abrogated on
other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en
banc). As to Quinteros De Corado, substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that she failed to establish her proposed social group is socially
distinct. See Conde Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1243 (proposed social group lacked
social distinction because the record failed to establish its members are perceived
or recognized as a group by the society in question).
We do not address petitioners’ contentions as to whether they established an
objectively reasonable fear of future persecution because the BIA did not deny
relief on these grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th
Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds
relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tortured by
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador.
See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of
torture).
3 17-72795
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4 17-72795