Maria Moran-Marinero v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 21 2023
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MARIA DEL TRANSITO MORAN-                       No.    20-71622
    MARINERO; YOSELIN GABRIELA
    REINA-MORAN,                                    Agency Nos.       A206-418-975
    A206-418-976
    Petitioners,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
    MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
    General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted August 17, 2023**
    Pasadena, California
    Before: WARDLAW, CHRISTEN, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
    Maria Moran-Marinero (Petitioner) and her now-adult daughter, natives and
    citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
    order dismissing Petitioner’s appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying
    *
    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).
    her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
    Convention Against Torture (CAT). Our jurisdiction is governed by 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Conde
    Quevedo v. Barr, 
    947 F.3d 1238
    , 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for
    review.
    1. Petitioner has not established that she is entitled to asylum. “To qualify
    for asylum, an alien must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the
    alien’s application for asylum was ‘filed within 1 year after the date of the alien’s
    arrival in the United States.’” Al Ramahi v. Holder, 
    725 F.3d 1133
    , 1134–35 (9th
    Cir. 2013) (quoting 
    8 U.S.C. § 1158
    (a)(2)(B)). An alien can obtain an exemption
    from the 1-year time bar by showing either (1) “changed circumstances” affecting
    his eligibility; or (2) “extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing an
    application.” 
    8 U.S.C. § 1158
    (a)(2)(D). In such cases, the alien must still “file an
    asylum application within a reasonable period.” 
    8 C.F.R. § 1208.4
    (a)(4)(ii), (a)(5).
    Petitioner last entered the United States in March 2014 and filed her asylum
    application in December 2016. The agency concluded that Petitioner’s almost
    three-year delay in applying for asylum was not reasonable. Petitioner did not
    contest this determination and has therefore waived any challenge to it. Corro-
    Barragan v. Holder, 
    718 F.3d 1174
    , 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not raised in
    opening brief are waived).
    2
    2. The agency’s denial of Petitioner’s application for withholding of removal
    is supported by substantial evidence. The record does not demonstrate that
    Petitioner’s proposed group – Salvadoran merchants or businesswomen at risk of
    harm from gangs – is “composed of members who share a common immutable
    characteristic,” or that Salvadoran society perceives business owners as a distinct
    social group. See Macedo Templos v. Wilkinson, 
    987 F.3d 877
    , 882 (9th Cir. 2021)
    (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 
    26 I. & N. Dec. 227
    , 237 (BIA 2014)). Thus,
    Petitioner failed to establish that her proposed social group is cognizable. See 
    id.
    at 882–83.
    3. Finally, substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. Petitioner
    has not shown past harm rising to the level of torture, and the agency reasonably
    concluded that her fear of torture by or with the acquiescence of public officials is
    speculative. Therefore, the record does not compel the conclusion that Petitioner
    satisfied her burden for CAT protection. See Xochihua-Jaimes v. Barr, 
    962 F.3d 1175
    , 1183 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that an applicant seeking relief under the CAT
    must establish that she “will more likely than not be tortured with the consent or
    acquiescence of a public official if removed to her native country”).
    PETITION DENIED. The temporary stay of removal remains in place
    until the mandate issues. The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-71622

Filed Date: 8/21/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/21/2023