NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 19 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT REYNA DE LOS ANGELES PALACIOS- No. 17-73043 PALACIOS, et al., Petitioners, Agency No. A202-123-889 A202-123-890 v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 15, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,*** District Judge. Petitioner Reyna de Los Angeles Palacios-Palacios (“Palacios-Palacios”) * 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 Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. and her minor son, natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying asylum, withholding from removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and review both the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) and the BIA’s decisions “[w]here, as here, the BIA cites Burbano and also provides its own review of the evidence and law.” Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2011). 1. We review denials of asylum and withholding of removal for substantial evidence, and to reverse we “must determine that the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Palacios-Palacios is not eligible for asylum. First, while Palacios-Palacios received several death threats and these types of threats alone can constitute persecution, the evidence here does not compel a finding that Palacios-Palacios suffered past persecution. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2019) (noting that “cases with threats alone, particularly anonymous or vague ones, rarely constitute persecution”). Second, Palacios-Palacios argues she is eligible for asylum because she has 1 Palacios-Palacios’s minor son has a derivative asylum claim through Palacios- Palacios; his claim rises or falls with hers. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3). 2 a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of her membership in the particular social group: “Salvadoran women who are single mothers with children, who own a small business in rural El Salvador, and whose partners are residing in the United States.” We review de novo whether a particular social group exists and for substantial evidence that “a specific society recognizes a social group.” Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2020). Palacios-Palacios “must show that the proposed social group is ‘(1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.’” Id. (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (2014)). Based on the record, substantial evidence supports the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals