NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 27 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDWIN ALEXANDER ALAS- No. 22-1181 VELASQUEZ, Agency No. A206-762-877 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 18, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: CALLAHAN and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and BOLTON,*** District Judge. * 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 Susan R. Bolton, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. Edwin Alexander Alas-Velasquez (“Alas”), a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing an appeal from an order of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. We review the agency’s factual findings, including the agency’s determination that a petitioner does not qualify for asylum or withholding of removal, under the highly deferential “substantial evidence” standard. See Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2021); I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992), superseded by statute on other grounds, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). A factual finding “is not supported by substantial evidence when ‘any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary’ based on the evidence in the record.” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (quoting Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th Cir. 2014)); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Alas failed to establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (to establish membership in a cognizable social group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who 2 share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). In rejecting Alas’ proposed social groups of “Salvadorans who have witnessed and reported gang crimes to law enforcement” or “imputed affiliation with rival gangs,” the agency determined that Alas failed to provide evidence that Salvadoran society perceived his proposed groups as socially distinct. Substantial evidence supports this conclusion. See Cordoba v. Barr, 962 F.3d 479, 482 (9th Cir. 2020) (“To have the ‘social distinction’ necessary to establish a particular social group, there must be evidence showing that society in general perceives, considers, or recognizes persons sharing the particular characteristic to be a group.” (quoting Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208, 217 (BIA 2014))); Conde Quevedo v. Barr, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals