NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 15 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALMA ERIKA RAMON-PERALTA & No. 19-72616 XIOMARA CLAVEL-RAMON, Agency Nos. A202-097-250 Petitioners, A202-097-251 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 13, 2021* San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and R. NELSON and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. Alma Erika Ramon-Peralta and Xiomara Clavel-Ramon (“Petitioners”) petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order vacating 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). immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision granting withholding of removal. We deny the petition. 1. The BIA did not err in concluding that the particular social group (“PSG”) of “the family of a threatened individual in Mexico” lacked social distinction.1 See Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014) (requiring alleged PSG be “socially distinct within the society in question”); see also Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1124 (9th Cir. 2015). “[T]he family remains the quintessential particular social group.” Rios, 807 F.3d at 1128. However, “some attenuated family links will not per se suffice” for a PSG. Jie Lin v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1028 (9th Cir. 2004). A petitioner must still show the alleged family relationship “presents the kind of ‘kinship ties’ that 1 Petitioners contend the BIA erred in not characterizing their PSG as “[f]amily of Raymundo Cabrera-Solis.” But Petitioners expressly identified “the family of a threatened individual in Mexico” as their PSG in their pre-hearing documents filed with the IJ, which is what the IJ relied on in conducting its analysis. Petitioners may have unartfully asserted the PSG they now focus on in their post-hearing briefing submitted to the IJ, but it is not clear they did so in manner sufficient to satisfy administrative exhaustion requirements. See Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 189, 191–92 (BIA 2018). Nevertheless, this is a distinction without a difference. The BIA understood Petitioners’ PSG as referencing their relationship to “specifically the father of [Alma’s] oldest daughter,” i.e. Raymundo Cabrera-Solis, and petitioners fail to explain how identifying their PSG as “family of Raymundo Cabrera-Solis instead of as “the family of a threatened individual in Mexico” would change the BIA’s analysis regarding whether their PSG was socially distinct. 2 constitute a ‘particular social group.’” See Gonzalez v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183, 186 (2006); see also Rios, 807 F.3d at 1128. Here, Petitioners’ evidence of alleged family ties is insufficient. First, they contend that that the drug trafficker’s seeking payment of Raymundo’s debts from Ms. Ramon-Peralta shows that the persecutor perceives them as a family unit. However, a PSG’s distinctiveness is based on how society, not a persecutor, perceives the group. …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals