Blanca Blanco-Tespan v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BLANCA ESTELA BLANCO-TESPAN; et No. 18-71502
al.,
Agency Nos. A209-280-840
Petitioners, A209-280-839
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 4, 2020**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Blanca Estela Blanco-Tespan and her minor son, natives and citizens of El
Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
*
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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th
Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation
of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535
(9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the
petition for review.
The agency did not err in finding that the proposed social group of
“Salvadoran males who resisted M18 gang recruitment multiple times” was not
cognizable. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to
demonstrate membership in a particular 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 within the
society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA
2014))); see also Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 744-46 (9th Cir. 2008)
(holding young men who resist gang violence in El Salvador is not a particular
social group), abrogated in part by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081,
1093 (9th Cir. 2013).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners
failed to establish they were or would be persecuted in El Salvador on account of a
2
protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even
if membership in a particular social group is established, an applicant must still
show that “persecution was or will be on account of his membership in such
group”); Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s
“desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random
violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus,
petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tortured by or with
the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Wakkary v. Holder,
558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture).
Petitioners’ contention that the agency failed to consider evidence is
unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3