Wendy Lisseth Herrera-De Perez v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WENDY LISSETH HERRERA-DE
PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 19-71914
Agency No. A202-073-098
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 20, 2021**
Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Wendy Lisseth Herrera de Perez, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
* 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
JAN 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-71914
Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v.
Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo the legal question
of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that
deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and
regulations. Id. at1241-42. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Herrera de Perez’s humanitarian asylum
claim. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks
jurisdiction to review claims not presented below).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Herrera de
Perez failed to establish that she was or would be persecuted on account of a
protected ground, including proposed particular social groups based on her family
membership and status as a woman not protected by the government. See Ayala v.
Holder, 640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular
social group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or
will be on account of [her] membership in such group”); 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 random violence by gang members bears no
nexus to a protected ground”).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-71914
The agency did not err in concluding that Herrera de Perez did not establish
membership in a cognizable particular social group based on his status as a
perceived wealthy returnee. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir.
2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular social 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))).
Thus, Herrera de Perez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Herrera de Perez failed to show it is more likely than not she will be tortured by or
with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as unsupported by the record Herrera de Perez’s contentions that
the agency violated her right to due process or otherwise erred in its analysis of her
claims.
As stated in the court’s October 7, 2020 order, the temporary stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --