Julio Trujillo-Alas v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 15 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JULIO TRUJILLO-ALAS, No. 14-71156 Petitioner, Agency No. A087-996-266 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 13, 2018** San Francisco, California Before: HAWKINS and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and JACK,*** District Judge. Julio Trujillo–Alas (“Trujillo”), a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal * 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 Janis Graham Jack, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation. from an immigration judge’s order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 1. We review questions of law de novo and review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence, treating them as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary[.]” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal. For those claims to succeed, Trujillo was required to establish membership in a particular social group that “is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.” Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014)). Trujillo claims membership in a particular social group of “young males from El Salvador who have been subject to persecution after refusing to join a gang and are subject to ongoing persecution” and a group of “male students attending school in El Salvador who oppose gang activity and have resisted gang recruitment[.]” However, we have previously held that the refusal to join a gang does not constitute membership in a particular social group. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854–55 (9th Cir. 2009) (young men in Guatemala who resist gang 2 recruitment do not constitute a particular social group); Santos–Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745–46 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence do not constitute a particular social group), abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez–Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Additionally, Trujillo presented no evidence that either one of his proposed social groups are perceived by Salvadoran society as a distinct social group.1 See Henriquez–Rivas, 707 F.3d at 1088–91. 2. Even assuming Trujillo’s proposed social groups are cognizable, he also failed to establish that the gang targeted him because of a protected ground. An asylum applicant must “establish ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals