Eva Nineth Mejia Ramirez De Sanchez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EVA NINETH MEJIA RAMIREZ DE
SANCHEZ; KATHERINE SANCHEZ
MEJIA; GABRIELA GUADALUPE
SANCHEZ MEJIA,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1650
Agency Nos.
A212-901-324
A212-901-325
A212-901-328
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 13, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: WALLACH,*** CHRISTEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Eva Nineth Mejia Ramirez De Sanchez and her two minor daughters, natives
* 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).
*** The Honorable Evan J. Wallach, United States Senior Circuit Judge
for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 15 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-1650
and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing their appeal of an immigration judge’s order
denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We “review legal conclusions de
novo” and “review for substantial evidence factual findings underlying the BIA’s
determination that a petitioner is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal,
or CAT relief.” Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022).
We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and recite them only as necessary.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of
removal based on Mejia Ramirez De Sanchez’s failure to establish her family’s
membership in her first proposed particular social group (PSG)—Guatemalan
family fleeing gang violence and extortion for refusing to pay rent money—
because she did not know whether her extortionists were gang members. See
Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1132 n.3 (9th Cir. 2016) (“An asylum or
withholding applicant’s burden includes . . . demonstrating . . . his membership in
[the proposed] particular social group . . . .” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Mejia
Ramirez De Sanchez’s second proposed PSG—Guatemalan witness of a crime
fleeing gang threats for being a potential witness in court against said gang

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-1650
members—lacks particularity because it “is not ‘discrete’ and lacks ‘definable
boundaries.’” Aguilar-Osorio v. Garland, 991 F.3d 997, 999 (9th Cir. 2021)
(quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 239 (BIA 2014)) (affirming
agency’s conclusion that a proposed group of “witnesses who . . . could testify
against gang members based upon what they witnessed” was not cognizable
(omission in original)).
Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief
because Mejia Ramirez De Sanchez did not show the involvement or acquiescence
of Guatemalan public officials in the harm she suffered or may suffer in the future.
See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[A] general
ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate and prevent crime will not
suffice to show acquiescence.” (citing Garcia–Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026,
1034 (9th Cir. 2013))).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --