Mauricio Escobar-Salinas v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 16 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAURICIO ROBERTO ESCOBAR- No. 19-72951
SALINAS,
Agency No. A208-150-926
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Mauricio Roberto Escobar-Salinas, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
*
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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review de novo the legal question of 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. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238,
1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Id.
at 1241. We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in concluding that Escobar-Salinas did not establish
membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d
1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order 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))). Thus, Escobar-
Salinas’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
Escobar-Salinas failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See
Vitug v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1056, 1066 (9th Cir. 2013) (evidence did not compel the
conclusion that petitioner was more likely than not to be tortured where, in part,
past harm did not rise to the level of torture); Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047
2 19-72951
(9th Cir. 2009).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 19-72951