NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 20 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERTO TRINIDAD MURCIA, No. 15-73735 Petitioner, Agency No. A094-378-779 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 15, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: SILER,*** TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Roberto Murcia, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions this court to review the denial of his applications for withholding of removal and for protection * 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 Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Murcia, a former member of the Norteño gang, alleged a fear of persecution and torture by rival gang members if removed to El Salvador. He also alleged that he would be in danger because of his uncle’s involvement with ARENA, a political party with a robust anti-gang agenda, and because he may move back to the town where he believes his abusive father still lives. The Immigration Judge (IJ) and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rejected Murcia’s CAT and withholding-of-removal claims based on political opinion, imputed political opinion, domestic abuse, and membership in the proposed particular social group (PSG) of “former Norteño gang members.” For the reasons that follow, we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, reversing the agency “when it acts arbitrarily, irrationally, or contrary to the law, and when it fails to provide a reasoned explanation for its actions.” Hernandez-Galand v. Garland, 996 F.3d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). And we review any factual findings for substantial evidence, leaving them undisturbed “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). First, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Murcia’s proposed PSG of “former members of the Norteño gangs” lacks social distinction. A cognizable PSG is “(1) composed of members who share a common immutable 2 characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.” Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014). Social distinction refers to whether “the people of a given society would perceive a proposed group as sufficiently separate or distinct.” Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077, 1084 (9th Cir. 2014). Because only country-specific evidence can shed light on such a question of societal perception, the agency must necessarily conduct its inquiry on a “case-by-case, country-by-country, and, in some cases, region-by- region” basis. Diaz-Torres v. Barr, 963 F.3d 976, 980 (9th Cir. 2020). Murcia argues …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals