Carmen Celene Miranda Miranda v. U.S. Attorney General

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 20-12951
Non-Argument Calendar
_____________________
Agency No. A208-181-555
CARMEN CELENE MIRANDA MIRANDA,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
____________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_____________________
(April 5, 2021)
Before JORDAN, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-12951 Date Filed: 04/05/2021 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Carmen Miranda Miranda seeks review of a BIA order affirming an IJ’s denial
of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture. After review, we deny Ms. Miranda’s petition.1
First, the BIA did not err in ruling that Ms. Miranda’s proposed social group
– Guatemalan women against gangs – is not legally cognizable for purposes of
asylum. A cognizable social group under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) must have
members who share a characteristic that is immutable or fundamental to their
conscience or identity, and the group must have sufficient social distinction. See
Amezcua-Preciedo v. Atty. General, 943 F.3d 1337, 1342-43 (11th Cir. 2019)
(holding that social group comprised of women in Mexico unable to leave their
domestic relationships was not cognizable – although gender was an immutable
characteristic, the group was not socially distinct in Mexican society and was not
defined with sufficient particularity). Ms. Miranda’s proposed social group does not
satisfy this standard. For example, Ms. Miranda did not establish that her proposed
group was viewed as socially distinct in Guatemala. See Mendez-Berrera v. Holder,
602 F. 3d 21, 26-27 (1st Cir. 2010) (holding that young women in El Salvador who
resisted gang recruitment was not a cognizable group).2
1 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the record, and set out only what is necessary to explain
our decision.
2 Given our ruling on this issue, we need not address whether Ms. Miranda established persecution
on account of membership in her proposed group.
USCA11 Case: 20-12951 Date Filed: 04/05/2021 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Second, substantial evidence supported the BIA’s determinations that Ms.
Miranda failed to establish (1) that the Guatemalan government was aware of the
illegal activity directed at her, and (2) that it was more likely than not that she would
be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government upon her return to
Guatemala. The Guatemalan government’s mixed success in combating,
prosecuting, and suppressing gang violence and torture – as indicated in the human
rights report offered by Ms. Miranda – does not constitute acquiescence in such
conduct. In addition, Ms. Miranda did not notify the authorities of the beatings or
threats, and this indicates that the Guatemalan government was unaware of what she
experienced and endured. See generally Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S.Ct. 1148, 1154
(2019) (in the context of review of agency fact-finding, “substantial evidence”
means more than a mere scintilla, and such that reasonable minds might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion).
PETITION DENIED.
USCA11 Case: 20-12951 Date Filed: 04/05/2021 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --