Myrna Lopez-Castano v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 26 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MYRNA IRENE LOPEZ-CASTANO, No. 19-71809
AKA Myra Castano,
Agency No. A209-138-837
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted November 19, 2021
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,** District
Judge.
Myrna Irene Lopez-Castano (“Petitioner”) petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) denial of her appeal from an Immigration
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
Petitioner previously lived with her husband and three children in their
hometown in Mexico. According to Petitioner’s testimony, every year in their
town, the local cartel would target local teenage girls to “give” to their boss.
Petitioner’s daughter was one of the girls targeted by the cartel, and the cartel
threatened to kill the entire family. Petitioner fled with her family to the United
States.
The IJ denied Petitioner’s applications for relief, and the BIA dismissed
Petitioner’s appeal. The BIA assumed Petitioner was credible but found that her
proposed particular social group (“PSG”), “mothers of teenage daughters,” was
neither sufficiently particular nor socially distinct. On Petitioner’s CAT
application, the BIA found Petitioner had not identified sufficient evidence of
likelihood of torture.
We have jurisdiction to review the petition under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We
deny the petition for review.
1. Applicants for asylum and withholding of removal who rely on
membership in a PSG as a protected ground must establish that the proposed group
is “(1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2)
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 Matter of M-E-V-G-,
26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014)). A proposed social group is not cognizable
where “society-specific evidence of social distinction” is absent. Conde Quevedo
v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1243 (9th Cir. 2020). Substantial evidence supports the
BIA’s determination that Petitioner’s broad proposed PSG of all mothers of
teenage daughters is insufficiently socially distinct to constitute a cognizable PSG.
2. To establish entitlement to protection under CAT, an applicant must show
“it is more likely than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the
proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Petitioner did not
provide sufficient evidence to compel the conclusion that, if she returns to Mexico
years after the cartel targeted her family, she will more likely than not be subject to
torture. See Mairena v. Barr, 917 F.3d 1119, 1126 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[O]ur task is
to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the BIA’s finding, not
to substitute an analysis of which side in the factual dispute we find more
persuasive.” (quotation marks and citations omitted)).
PETITION DENIED.
3