NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 16 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GABRIELA GUADALUPE SALGADO- No. 18-73152 SARAVIA, Petitioner, Agency No. A208-759-709 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 12, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: BYBEE, R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and WHALEY,*** District Judge Partial Dissent by Judge WHALEY * 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 Robert H. Whaley, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation. Petitioner Gabriela Guadalupe Salgado-Saravia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and immigration judge’s (“IJ”) (collectively, “Agency”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “We review the denial of asylum, withholding of removal and CAT claims for substantial evidence.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Taggar v. Holder, 736 F.3d 886, 889 (9th Cir. 2013). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the Agency’s determination that Salgado- Saravia failed to establish membership in her proposed particular social group. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) (providing that an applicant must be a member of her proposed social group). Assuming without deciding that Salgado-Saravia’s proposed particular social group (“women in El Salvador unable to leave their relationship”) is cognizable1, the evidence in the record does not compel the conclusion that Salgado-Saravia fits within this definition because she was able to 1 The Agency relied on the reasoning articulated in Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 388 (BIA 2014), and distinguished, based on immutability grounds, the proposed group formulated as “married women in Guatemala who are unable to leave their relationship” from Salgado-Saravia’s proposed group. 2 leave her relationship with her former partner. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s factual determination that Salgado-Saravia was not a member of her proposed particular social group because she was not married to or in a long-term relationship with her former partner. The IJ found that Salgado-Saravia engaged in a short-term intimate relationship that lasted approximately 5 months during which time she left him on two different occasions. Salgado-Saravia testified2 that after living with him for about a month or month and a half, she left him to reside with her family. She returned to live with her partner for several months and subsequently left him a second time to live with her uncle. When her former partner tried to force her to return, bystanders …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals