NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 26 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FLOR ESTER CRUZ LOPEZ; BRAYAN No. 19-71215 ERNESTO MOLINA CRUZ; Y.S.M.C., a Juvenile Male; J.M.M.C., a Juvenile Male,* Agency Nos. A206-758-880 A206-758-881 Petitioners, A206-758-882 A206-758-883 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM** General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted March 5, 2021 Pasadena, California Before: MILLER and LEE, Circuit Judges, and HILLMAN,*** District Judge. Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge LEE * The Board of Immigration Appeals’ order hyphenates petitioners’ last names and lists Brayan Ernesto Molina Cruz as “Brayon Molina-Cruz.” The Clerk will update the docket as indicated to accurately reflect petitioners’ names. ** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. *** The Honorable Timothy Hillman, United States District Judge for the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation. Flor Cruz Lopez and her three sons, Brayan Molina Cruz, Y.S.M.C., and J.M.M.C, natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we grant the petition in part and deny the petition in part. 1. The Board correctly concluded that certain of petitioners’ proposed particular social groups are not cognizable. We review the cognizability of a particular social group de novo, Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1059 (9th Cir. 2019), and the agency’s underlying factual findings for substantial evidence, Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2020). The Board correctly reviewed the immigration judge’s underlying factual findings for clear error, and we see no indication that the Board failed to consider the ultimate question of each group’s cognizability de novo, as petitioners contend. See 8 C.F.R. 1003.1(d)(3)(i)–(ii). The proposed social group of “Salvadoran women viewed as property by gang members” lacks particularity and social distinction. The group lacks particularity because it has no clear benchmark for determining which past or prospective female victims of gangs belong to the group. See Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2020); Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208, 214 2 (B.I.A. 2014). It also lacks social distinction because it is defined solely by reference to the persecutor’s perception, which “is not itself enough to make a group socially distinct.” Cordoba v. Barr, 962 F.3d 479, 482–83 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 242 (B.I.A. 2014)). Likewise, the proposed social groups of “Salvadoran women without the protection of a male spouse or partner” and “Salvadoran boys without the protection of a father” lack particularity and social distinction. As to particularity, the concept of “protection” is amorphous and subjective. See Matter of S-E-G-, 24 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals