NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 18 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YOSIRA REYES-FLORES, No. 18-70248 ALLISON REYES-FLORES, Agency Nos. A206 835 733, Petitioners, A206 835 734 v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 10, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Circuit Judge, SCHROEDER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.** Petitioners Yosira Reyes-Flores and her minor daughter, Allison Reyes- Flores, citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their application for asylum, withholding of removal, * 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). and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We review questions of law de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289, 1290 (9th Cir. 2008). Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision, we deny the petition for review. 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, 1135 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014)). Applying these criteria, the BIA rejected Reyes-Flores’s proposed particular social group of “employed women in El Salvador who are opposed to gangs and extortion cast upon them and their families.” Citing the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) findings, the BIA held that her group was not particular in that it “could include persons of any age or background.” Likewise, the BIA found “the record evidence does not demonstrate that the proposed group possesses fundamental identifying characteristics which cause such individuals to be perceived as a distinct social group by Salvadoran society.” 1 Petitioners filed only one application, under Yosira Reyes-Flores’s name, for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. Accordingly, we discuss only Yosira’s claims here. See Sumolang v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1080, 1083 (9th Cir. 2013) (explaining that only asylum claims, and not claims for withholding of removal, allow for derivative beneficiaries); see 8 C.F.R. § 208.16 (making no provision for derivative claims under the CAT). 2 Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Reyes-Flores’s proposed social group lacks particularity. The proposed group of “employed women who oppose gangs and extortion” is diffuse, incorporating huge sections of the Salvadoran population without respect to their age, socioeconomic status, or background. We have rejected similar groups as lacking sufficient particularity. See, e.g., Mendoza-Alvarez v. Holder, 714 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (rejecting proposed groups of “all disabled persons; all insulin-dependent diabetics; and all insulin-dependent diabetics who suffer from mental illnesses” because they included “large numbers of people with different conditions and in ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals