CELSO AMERIT ORTEGA-AMAYA, AKA Jose Amaya, AKA Celso Ortega, AKA Celso Ameth Ortega,… v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CELSO AMERIT ORTEGA-AMAYA,
AKA Jose Amaya, AKA Celso Ortega,
AKA Celso Ameth Ortega, AKA Cenlo
Ortega,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72883
Agency No. A095-018-632
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 7, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Celso Amerit Ortega-Amaya (“Ortega-Amaya”), a native and citizen of El
Salvador, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
FILED
AUG 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

application for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act
(“INA”) and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition.
Whether a group constitutes a “particular social group” is a question of law
that we review de novo, Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 665 (9th Cir. 2010), but
we defer to the BIA’s interpretation of 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. See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827
F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016).
The BIA did not err in finding that Ortega-Amaya has not established
membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125,
1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining cognizability standard) (citing Matter of M-E-G-
V-, 26 I & N Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014)). Ortega-Amaya has not established that
men targeted for recruitment by criminal gangs in El Salvador would be perceived
by society or criminal gangs as a particular social group. See Santos-Lemus v.
Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 744-46 (9th Cir. 2018) (men in El Salvador resisting gang
violence is not a particular social group), abrogated in part by Henriquez-Rivas v.
Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013). Ortega-Amaya also has not
established that men returning to El Salvador after lengthy absences would be
2

-- 2 of 3 --

perceived by society or criminal gangs as a particular social group. See Reyes, 842
F.3d at 1138-40 (deportees from the United States to El Salvador is not a particular
social group). Thus, Ortega-Amaya’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief. The
record does not compel the conclusion that Ortega-Amaya is “more likely than
not” to be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if he
returns to El Salvador. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); see also Aden v. Holder, 589
F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). Thus, Ortega-Amaya’s CAT claim also fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --