NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 8 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CRICELIA ZEPEDA ACEVEDO; No. 17-72274 VALENTINA GUADALUPE ZEPEDA ACEVEDO, Agency Nos. A202-153-726 A202-153-727 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 6, 2019** Seattle, Washington Before: GOULD and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and PREGERSON,*** District Judge. Petitioners Cricelia Zepeda Acevedo and her infant daughter, both natives and citizens of Mexico, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s * 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). *** The Honorable Dean D. Pregerson, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. (“BIA”) decision upholding the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and deny the petition with respect to Petitioners’ asylum and withholding claims, grant the petition with respect to Petitioners’ CAT claims, and remand to the BIA for further consideration of Petitioners’ CAT claims. 1. An applicant for asylum or withholding of removal can demonstrate membership in a “particular social group” for purposes of refugee status only if the applicant shows 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.” Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014)). Whether a group qualifies as a “particular social group” is a question of law that we review de novo. Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2014). With respect to the first asserted social group, business owners who have opposed a criminal organization, Petitioners make no attempt to demonstrate either immutable characteristics or social distinction, and have failed to show that the proposed group is recognized by society as “a discrete class of persons.” Reyes, 82 F.3d at 1134 (quoting Matter of S–E–G–, 24 I. & N. Dec. 579, 584 (BIA 2008)). With respect to the second proposed group, people who remain neutral in the 2 17-72274 conflict between criminal organizations and community self-defense groups, Petitioners again fail to establish that the proposed group is defined with particularity or recognized by society as a discrete group.1 The BIA did not, therefore, err in denying Petitioners asylum on the basis of membership in a particular social group. 2. The BIA did not err in denying asylum on the basis of Petitioners’ political opinion, namely, neutrality. See Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1487–89 (9th Cir. 1997) (recognizing that political neutrality can be a political opinion under the under INA, but only ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals