Crisna Bethania Jimenez- Maradiaga; Harold Nathaneal Jimenez-Maradiaga v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRISNA BETHANIA JIMENEZ-
MARADIAGA; HAROLD NATHANEAL
JIMENEZ-MARADIAGA,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70857
Agency Nos. A202-087-874
A202-087-873
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Crisna Bethania Jimenez-Maradiaga and Harold Nathaneal Jimenez-
Maradiaga, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an
* 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
NOV 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-70857
immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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.
Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Id. at 1241. We deny the
petition for review.
The BIA did not err in concluding that petitioners failed to establish
membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d
1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (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))); see also Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816
F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th Cir. 2016) (proposed particular social group lacked
particularity because it could not be described “with passable distinction that the
group would be recognized as a discrete class of persons” in the society). Thus,
petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-70857
because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they 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 petitioners’ contentions that the agency applied an
incorrect legal standard or otherwise erred in the analysis of their CAT claims.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --