NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 22-1086 ___________ SANDRA LORENA ARIETA-LOPEZ; DIEGO RODRIGO ARIETA-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioners v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ____________________________________ On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Agency Nos. A099-663-559 and A208-885-625) Immigration Judge: John B. Carle ____________________________________ Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) October 7, 2022 Before: HARDIMAN, SHWARTZ, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: November 9, 2022) ___________ OPINION* __________ NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Sandra Arieta-Lopez and her minor son petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final order of removal, arguing that the BIA erred by finding that her proposed social group was not cognizable. Because Arieta-Lopez failed to exhaust one claim and her other arguments lack merit, we will dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. I. Arieta-Lopez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States in 2006 and was subsequently removed pursuant to a removal order in January 2010. She and her minor son, also a native and citizen of El Salvador, then entered the United States again in January 2016. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reinstated Arieta- Lopez’s 2010 removal order. After she claimed a fear of returning to El Salvador, an asylum officer conducted a reasonable fear interview and determined that Arieta-Lopez did not have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture. She requested review of that determination before an Immigration Judge (IJ), who vacated the decision and placed Arieta-Lopez in “withholding-only” proceedings. DHS also placed the minor son into removal proceedings by filing a Notice to Appear, charging him with inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. Although Arieta-Lopez was not eligible to seek asylum, see Cazun v. Att’y Gen., 856 F.3d 249, 251 (3d Cir. 2017) (noncitizens “subject to reinstated removal orders are ineligible to apply for asylum”), she sought withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The minor son filed an application for asylum, 2 withholding of removal, and relief under CAT. The applications were denied, finding, among other things, that Arieta-Lopez did not identify a cognizable particular social group, and she and her son were ordered removed to El Salvador. They appealed to the BIA. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. The BIA agreed that Arieta-Lopez’s proposed particular social group lacked immutability, particularity, and social distinction, was not persuaded that being a bank teller is fundamental to her identity in El Salvador, and concluded that her proposed group is impermissibly circularly defined by the harm experienced or feared. The BIA also concluded that even if the group were cognizable, there was no clear error in the IJ’s finding that Arieta-Lopez did not establish a nexus between the harm she feared and a protected ground. As …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals