Aurea Ortega-Reyes v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 18 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AUREA ORTEGA-REYES, No. 20-70079
Petitioner, Agency No. A076-658-468
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 31, 2020**
Pasadena, California
Before: SILER,*** BERZON, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Aurea Ortega-Reyes (“Ortega”) petitions for review of a final removal order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition because Ortega’s proposed social group is not
*
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.
cognizable within Mexican society. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence to
compel a contrary conclusion on fear of future persecution and the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”) claim. Cf. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1
(1992) (explaining that the BIA’s decision should not be reversed unless the
evidence compels a contrary conclusion).
1. To establish past persecution, Ortega must show “(1) an incident, or incidents,
that rise to the level of persecution; (2) that is on account of one of the statutorily-
protected grounds; and (3) is committed by the government or forces the government
is either unable or unwilling to control.” Doe v. Holder, 736 F.3d 871, 877-78 (9th
Cir. 2013) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
An asylum applicant can demonstrate persecution on account of a statutorily-
protected ground by showing that she was persecuted based on “membership in a
particular social group.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). For a proposed social group to
be cognizable, it must be: “(1) composed of members who share a common
immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct
within the society in question.” Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1127-28 (9th Cir.
2015) (citation omitted).
To meet the third element, the distinction need not be a physical one: “to be
socially distinct, a group need not be seen by society; it must instead be perceived
as a group by society.” Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208, 212-18 (B.I.A.
2 20-70079
2014). The task, then, is determining “whether a proposed particular social group’s
shared characteristic or characteristics would generally be recognizable by other
members of the community, or whether there was evidence that members of the
proposed group would be perceived as a group by society.” Reyes v. Lynch, 842
F.3d 1125, 1136 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, the IJ and BIA correctly concluded that Ortega’s proposed particular
social group comprised of “displaced Mexican women who are relatives of
famil[ies] involved in land disputes with organized crime” was not cognizable
because it was not distinct within Mexican society. Applicants often utilize country
condition reports or press accounts to demonstrate that a group is cognizable within
their community. See Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013). Ortega
did not present any such evidence, or any other, to support her assertion that this
proposed group was cognizable in Mexico. The IJ correctly determined that
Ortega’s proposed social group was not a distinct group in Mexican society.
Moreover, we do not consider the two additional social groups raised by
Ortega—her family and those who have refused to comply with cartel members’
demands—because she did not properly exhaust them. See Honcharov v. Barr, 924
F.3d 1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019).
2. To be eligible for withholding of removal based on future persecution, an
applicant must show that it is “more likely than not that he or she would be
3 20-70079
persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion upon removal to that country.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b)(2).
Ortega claims a fear of future persecution based on her membership in a proposed
social group of “displaced Mexican women who are relatives of famil[ies] involved
in land disputes with organized crime” and based on her religion as a Seventh Day
Adventist.
Ortega’s first proposed social group fails for the reasons stated above.
Additionally, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the cartel is still
seeking her family’s land. Ortega stated that the land the cartel wanted in 1996 is
currently owned by her sister who regularly visits the property without incident.
Furthermore, the land is unoccupied. As such, there is scarce evidence to compel
the conclusion that it is more likely than not that Ortega would be persecuted because
the cartel wants her family’s land.
There is also insufficient evidence to show that it is more likely than not that
Ortega will be persecuted because she is a Seventh Day Adventist. While Seventh
Day Adventists are not explicitly discussed in the International Religious Freedom
Report, the report states that minority religions are generally freely exercised in
Mexico. The report lists only isolated instances of discrimination and forced
expulsion in a few communities resulting from refusal to participate in Catholic
cultural festivities. Ortega stated that she did not know of anyone who experienced
4 20-70079
harm for not being Catholic. As a result, there is insufficient evidence to compel the
conclusion that it is more likely than not that Ortega would be persecuted in Mexico
based on her religion.
3. Moreover, because Ortega has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not
that she will be persecuted upon her return to Mexico, she has necessarily failed to
meet the higher standard to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that she will
be tortured if she returns to Mexico. Cf. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(2) (“Torture is an
extreme form of cruel and inhuman treatment . . . .”). As a result, Ortega’s CAT
claim fails.
The petition for review is DENIED.1
1
Ortega’s motion to stay proceedings is denied as moot.
5 20-70079