BLANCA QUINTANILLA-DE PINEDA V. MATTHEW WHITAKER, No. 17-72545 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BLANCA ARELY QUINTANILLA-DE PINEDA; et al., Petitioners, No. 17-72545 Agency Nos. A209-240-385 A209-240-386 v. MATTHEW WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 17, 2018** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Blanca Arely Quintanilla-De Pineda and her daughter, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigrations Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum and withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction * 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). is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 118485 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA did not err in finding that petitioners did not establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular 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))). Further, we find no error in the BIA’s finding and assessment of petitioners new social group arguments. See Matter of J-Y-C-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 260, 261 n.1 (BIA 2007) (issues not raised to the IJ are not properly before the BIA on appeal). Thus, we deny the petition as to petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims. We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ due process contention and their challenge to the IJ’s interpretation of law because they failed to raise these claims to the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004). 2 17-72545 PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 3 17-72545

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.