United States v. 2020-12-17 | 18-72229 | MINERVA SANCHEZ BELLO V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MINERVA SANCHEZ BELLO;
GERARDO ORTUNO SANCHEZ;
ULISES URIEL ORTUNO SANCHEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-72229
Agency Nos. A206-915-332
A206-915-333
A206-915-334
MEMORANDUM
*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 8, 2020
**
Seattle, Washington
Before: KLEINFELD, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Lead Petitioner Minerva Sanchez Bello and her two sons seek review of the
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal of the
denial of their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
FILED
DEC 17 2020
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).

Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §
1252.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an applicant seeking asylum or
withholding of removal must demonstrate past persecution or a well-founded fear
of future persecution based on “race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d
1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). The agency’s determination that the
petitioners failed to establish harm related to race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was supported by
substantial evidence. See id. (reviewing the BIA decision for substantial evidence).
The lead petitioner was unable to persuade the Immigration Judge or the BIA that
her husband was killed by members of the cartel, leaving the reason for his death
unknown.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that survivors of
bus and limo drivers who have been shot by cartel members; male, gang-aged
members who resist recruitment; the Ortuno family of chauffeurs; and sons of the
Ortuno family of chauffeurs, are not recognized social groups in Mexico. To
establish a cognizable social group, an applicant must demonstrate that “the
proposed social group is (1) composed of members who share a common
2

immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct
within the society in question.” Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th
Cir. 2020) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). There must also be
evidence demonstrating that society perceives the “persons sharing the particular
characteristic to be a group.” Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131, 1135 (9th Cir.
2016) (holding that the BIA’s articulation of the social group requirement was
reasonable) (emphasis omitted). Petitioners failed to present evidence
demonstrating that society views their proposed social groups as sharing a
particular characteristic that defines the groups. See id. at 1131-32.
An applicant qualifies for CAT relief if she demonstrates “that torture would
be inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a
public official or other person acting in an official capacity.” Singh v. Whitaker,
914 F.3d 654, 662 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that the Petitioners did
not meet their burden, as their claims of likelihood of torture were speculative. See
Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding that the
possibility of torture remained too speculative to compel reversal).
PETITION DENIED.
3