Fernando Valle Rodriguez v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FERNANDO WILVER VALLE No. 16-73294
RODRIGUEZ,
Agency No. A200-694-628
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Fernando Wilver Valle Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for
withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
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 for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Id. at 1241. We
deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in concluding that Valle Rodriguez failed to 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))); see also Santos-
Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008) (proposed group of
“young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence” lacked particularity),
abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.
2013) (en banc). Thus, Valle Rodriguez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Valle
Rodriguez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Garcia-
2 16-73294
Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033-35 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner did not
establish the necessary “state action” for CAT relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-73294