Jaime Cruz-Amaya v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 573 F. App'x 611 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 16 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAIME CLOW CRUZ-AMAYA, AKA No. 11-73462
Jaime Laclow Cruz-Amaya, AKA Jaime
Leclow Cruz-Amaya, Agency No. A094-772-186
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, McKEOWN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jaime Clow Cruz-Amaya (“Cruz-Amaya”) petitions for review of his final
order of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny
the petition.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Cruz-Amaya contends that he is eligible for asylum as a member of the
particular social group of “child laborers” in El Salvador.1 The BIA and IJ
convincingly reasoned that a social group as broad and amorphous as all child
laborers within a country does not satisfy the social group requirement. We agree.
See Ramos-Lopez v. Holder, 563 F.3d 855, 861–62 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting social
group consisting of young men who resisted gang recruitment because “[o]nly
shared experience—that of gang recruitment—unites them.”), abrogated on other
grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc);
Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 746 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting social
group of young men who resist gang violence). Child laborers as a group is less
defined than the groups rejected in Santos-Lemus and Ramos-Lopez because it is
not limited by a particular gender, shared action, or belief. Moreover, Cruz-Amaya
did not show that child laborers as a group have social visibility. See Donchev v.
Mukasey, 553 F.3d 1206, 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that general
1
The BIA’s determination in an unpublished decision that a proposed
group does not meet the “particular social group” requirement is a matter of
statutory interpretation that this court considers for “the validity of the BIA’s
reasoning, its thoroughness, and overall persuasiveness, and give[s] it weight
accordingly.” United States v. Casasola, 670 F.3d 1023, 1030 (9th Cir. 2012)
(internal quotation marks omitted). We review the decisions of both the BIA and
the IJ where, as here, the BIA added its own reasoning to the IJ’s determination.
Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2011).
2
classifications such as a group’s affluence do not meet the social visibility
requirement). Finally, Cruz-Amaya did not show that he was forced to become a
child laborer because of a protected attribute or that he was otherwise persecuted
because of a protected attribute. Truong v. Holder, 613 F.3d 938, 941 (9th Cir.
2010).
On review of the immigration judge’s decision, the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) incorrectly stated at three points that Cruz-Amaya is a citizen of
Mexico. This unfortunate error was harmless. Vides-Vides v. I.N.S., 783 F.2d
1463, 1469 (9th Cir. 1986) (applying harmless error review to immigration judge’s
decision). The BIA’s conclusion that child laborers are not a social group for
asylum purposes accords with this circuit’s precedent. Additionally, the BIA’s
determination was based on Cruz-Amaya’s testimony concerning his personal
circumstances, which the BIA correctly summarized, rendering the country of
origin misstep inconsequential.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3