Opinion
15-73295
06-22-2022
MANUELA FRANCISCA TOMAS-LORENZO; et al., Petitioners, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency Nos. A206-807-204, A206-807-205, A206-807-206
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Manuela Francisca Tomas-Lorenzo and her minor two sons, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying their application for asylum and denying Tomas-Lorenzo's application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 review for substantial evidence the agency's factual findings. Id. at 1241. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The agency did not err in concluding that petitioners did not establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order 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))). To the extent petitioners raise a new particular social group in their opening brief, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). Thus, petitioners' asylum claim and Tomas-Lorenzo's withholding of removal claim fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency's denial of CAT relief because Tomas-Lorenzo failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as unsupported by the record petitioners' contentions that the BIA violated their due process rights by using its streamlining procedures or by failing to explain its reasoning.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).