NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 14 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA MAGDALENA RAMOS- No. 18-73274 PORTILLO, Agency No. A087-941-736 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 12, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: WALLACE and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and GWIN,*** District Judge. Petitioner Maria Magdalena Ramos-Portillo seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal from an * 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 James S. Gwin, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and deny the petition. We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Villavicencio v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 658, 663 (9th Cir. 2018) (as amended). “The BIA’s factual findings are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. at 663–64 (internal quotation marks omitted). Our review is “limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 411 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 1. We affirm the BIA’s determination that Petitioner’s proposed particular social groups were not socially distinct in Salvadorian society. Whether a particular social group is cognizable is a question of law reviewed de novo. Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2014). But social distinction relies on underlying factual issues, reviewed for substantial evidence. Garay Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1138 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 736 (2018). To determine whether Petitioner’s proposed particular social groups satisfy the requirement of social distinction, we ask “whether a group can accurately be described in a manner sufficiently distinct that the group would be recognized, in the society in question, as a discrete class of persons.” Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 2 707 F.3d 1081, 1091 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Petitioner submitted no evidence that Salvadoran society would see her as part of a socially distinct group based on her prior relationship with a man who abused her while they were in the United States. Because the record evidence does not compel the conclusion that the proposed groups are viewed as distinct in Salvadoran society, we affirm the BIA’s finding that they are not cognizable social groups. 2. We affirm the agency’s denial of CAT protection. The record evidence does not compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not that Petitioner would be tortured if she is returned to El ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals