NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 18 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIO JOSE RODRIGUEZ- No. 16-72425 ALVARADO, Agency No. A206-736-731 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 16, 2019** San Diego, California Before: HURWITZ, OWENS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Mario Jose Rodriguez-Alvarado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a final removal order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 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”). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Rodriguez-Alvarado failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Rodriguez- Alvarado failed to present sufficient evidence that his proposed particular social group of “young males from El Salvador taking concrete steps to avoid gang recruitment” had “the requisite particularity and social distinction to be cognizable.” To be cognizable, a “particular social group” must be “(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). Although this court has determined that “persons taking concrete steps to oppose gang membership and gang authority” may plausibly constitute a particular social group, “the agency must make a case-by-case determination as to whether the group is recognized by the particular society in question.” Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077, 1084 (9th Cir. 2014). 2 Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Rodriguez- Alvarado failed to meet the particularity requirement because he did not establish that Salvadoran society recognizes his proposed group “as a discrete class of persons.” Reyes, 842 F.3d at 1134 (citation omitted). Rodriguez-Alvarado’s general evidence about gang violence does not compel the conclusion that Salvadoran society considers “young males from El Salvador taking concrete steps to avoid gang recruitment” as a distinct social group. See id. at 1138. Even if Rodriguez-Alvarado had presented sufficient evidence that his proposed particular social group were cognizable, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that he failed to meet the “nexus” requirement because he did not show that the gangs targeted him based on his membership in that group, and not simply for monetary gain or to increase gang membership. Id. at 1132 n.3. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Rodriguez- Alvarado’s refusal to join the gang or comply with their demands, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals