Molina-Cortez v. Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARVIN ALEXANDER MOLINA- No. 22-414
CORTEZ, Agency No.
A208-983-733
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 15, 2023**
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Marvin Alexander Molina-Cortez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his
*
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).
applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo the legal question of whether a particular social group
is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s
interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Conde Quevedo v. Barr,
947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in concluding that Molina-Cortez failed to establish
membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d
1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (to demonstrate membership in a particular social
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) (“young men in El Salvador resisting gang
violence” is too loosely defined to meet the requirement for particularity),
abrogated in part by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir.
2013). Thus, Molina-Cortez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Molina-Cortez’s remaining
contentions regarding his asylum and withholding of removal claims. See
2 22-414
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts are not required to
decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
Because Molina-Cortez does not contest the BIA’s determination that he
waived challenge to the IJ’s denial of his CAT claim, we do not address it. See
Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 22-414