ANGELA MARTINEZ DE ROSALES, ET AL V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 17-71816 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 14 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANGELA NOEMY MARTINEZ DE ROSALES; et al., No. 17-71816 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A202-161-911 A202-161-912 A202-161-913 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 8, 2022** Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Angela Noemy Martinez de Rosales and her minor children, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum, and Martinez de Rosales’s * 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 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 review factual findings for substantial evidence. Id. at 1241. We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not err in concluding that petitioners 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))). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that petitioners otherwise failed to establish they were or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim, and Martinez de Rosales’s withholding of removal claim fail. 2 Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection because Martinez de Rosales 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 El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). Petitioners’ opposed motion to remand this case to the BIA (Docket Entry No. 17) is denied. See United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (lack of hearing information in notice to appear does not deprive immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction, and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) is satisfied when later notice provides hearing information). The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
