Alma Julissa Recinos-Gonzalez; Fatima Yamileth Aragon- Recinos v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALMA JULISSA RECINOS-GONZALEZ;
FATIMA YAMILETH ARAGON-
RECINOS,
Petitioners,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70986
Agency Nos. A208-983-264
A208-983-265
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Alma Julissa Recinos-Gonzalez and Fatima Yamileth Aragon-Recinos,
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’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
* 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).
FILED
MAR 15 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-70986
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, 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. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th
Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in finding that petitioners failed to 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))). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that petitioners otherwise failed to establish that any harm they
experienced or fear in El Salvador was or would be 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-70986
random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus,
petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
In their opening brief, petitioners fail to challenge the agency’s denial of
CAT relief. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 2013)
(issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
Thus, we deny the petition as to their CAT claims.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --