FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 16 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SANDRA ARELY PENA FLORES; No. 19-73185 JOSUE LEONEL MERROQUIN PENA, Agency Nos. A208-267-639 Petitioners, A208-267-640 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 14, 2022** Pasadena, California Before: RAWLINSON and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and SIMON,*** District Judge. * 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 Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation. Petitioner Sandra Arely Pena Flores (Pena Flores) and her son Josue Leonel Merroquin Pena (Josue), natives and citizens of El Salvador, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of Pena Flores’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Josue seeks derivative relief through Pena Flores’s claims. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them here. Our review is confined to the BIA’s decision except where the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision. See Guerra v. Barr, 974 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo questions of law, and we review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. See Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2005). Although the IJ found Pena Flores not credible, the BIA assumed Pena Flores’s credibility and dismissed her claims on other grounds. We too assume her credibility for purposes of our review. 1. Pena Flores sought asylum and withholding of removal based on the proposed particular social group of “Salvadoran mothers refusing to provide control and custody of their children to gangs.” As an initial matter, Pena Flores’s testimony suggests gang members targeted her at her home based on generalized 2 criminal motives. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)). But assuming she could satisfy the nexus requirement, Pena Flores bore the burden to demonstrate a cognizable particular social group by showing that the 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.” Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014). Pena Flores contends her proposed group satisfies the particularity requirement because she “is a family member and it is clearly evident through blood ties being the parent of her son, family has definable boundaries that are clear and can be known precisely.” “Particularity” requires the group to “be defined by characteristics that provide a clear benchmark for determining who falls within the group.” …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals