FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 22, 2021 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court MARIA VERONICA ALFARO- ESCOBAR, Petitioner, v. No. 20-9582 (Petition for Review) MERRICK B. GARLAND, ∗ Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT** _________________________________ Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Maria Veronica Alfaro-Escobar (“Petitioner”) petitions for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA’s”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Petitioner is not entitled ∗ On March 11, 2021, Merrick Garland became Attorney General of the United States. Consequently, his name has been substituted for William P. Barr as Respondent, per Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). ** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. to asylum or withholding of removal, however, because her proposed particular social group is impermissibly circular. Further, the BIA’s denial of CAT relief is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we DENY the petition for review. I. Background Petitioner is a native and citizen of El Salvador. Petitioner was born in 1998. In El Salvador, Petitioner was sexually assaulted on a regular basis. One of her assailants was a member of the La Mara 18 gang and referred to Petitioner as “jaina.” In 2016, Petitioner fled El Salvador and entered the United States as an unaccompanied minor. Petitioner was detained by the Department of Homeland Security and conceded her removability in Immigration Court. Petitioner also applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under CAT. Following a hearing, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Petitioner’s application for relief and ordered Petitioner removed to El Salvador. Petitioner timely appealed to the BIA. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision. Petitioner then filed a timely petition for review in this court. Petitioner presents two arguments in her petition for review: (1) whether she has established that she is a member of a cognizable particular social group, and thus entitled to asylum or withholding of removal; and (2) whether the BIA should have granted protection under CAT. See Pet’r’s Br. at 7. 2 II. Asylum and Withholding of Removal “On an asylum claim, we review the BIA’s findings of fact under a substantial-evidence standard.” Rodas-Orellana v. Holder, 780 F.3d 983, 990 (10th Cir. 2015) (internal quotations and citations omitted). “We review the BIA’s legal decisions de novo, but we defer to the BIA’s interpretation of ambiguous provisions of the [Immigration and Naturalization Act], and must …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals