Luis Angel Perez Martinez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS ANGEL PEREZ MARTINEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-70071
Agency No. A200-157-416
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.
Luis Angel Perez Martinez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal
from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
* 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 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-70071
(“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 record does not compel the conclusion that Perez Martinez established
changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely asylum application.
See Singh v. Holder, 649 F.3d 1161, 1164-65 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (court
retained jurisdiction to review legal or constitutional questions related to the one-
year filing deadline); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)-(5) (changed and extraordinary
circumstances). Perez Martinez’s challenge to the denial of humanitarian asylum
lacks merit. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1)(iii)(A). Perez Martinez’s asylum claim
thus fails.
The BIA did not err in concluding that Perez Martinez 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-,

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-70071
26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542
F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008) (proposed group “young men in El Salvador
resisting gang violence” lacked particularity), abrogated on other grounds
by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Thus,
Perez Martinez’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Perez Martinez failed to show it is more likely than not he 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); see also
Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014) (“torture must 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’”) (internal citation omitted).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
All other pending motions are denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --