NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 27 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SALVADOR JUAN-MIGUEL, AKA Mario No. 19-71725 Maldonado-Gonzalez; MARIA CUPERTINO-SALVADOR; et al., Agency Nos. A205-707-451 A208-197-224 Petitioners, A208-197-225 A208-197-226 v. A208-197-227 A208-197-228 MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM * 0F Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 17, 2022**1F Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Salvador Juan-Miguel, Maria Cupertino-Salvador, and their minor children, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to remand and dismissing their * 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). appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum and denying Juan-Miguel’s and Cupertino-Salvador’s applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the legal question of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Id. at 1241. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny the petition for review. The agency did not err in concluding that Petitioners did not establish membership in a cognizable particular social group with regard to Juan-Miguel’s ownership of a business and “gang oppression” or “witness to a crime / recruitment.”1 See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order 2F to demonstrate membership in a particular social group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct 1 To the extent that Petitioners’ proposed social group as defined in their brief differs from the proposed social groups addressed in the agency, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). 2 19-71725 within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also Conde Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1243 (distinguishing Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081,1092 (9th Cir. 2013), in which a petitioner had testified publicly in open court); Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 855 (9th Cir. 2009) (proposed group of young males in Guatemala who are targeted for gang recruitment not cognizable), abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas, 707 F.3d at 1093. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Petitioners otherwise failed to establish that any of them would be persecuted …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals