Brenda Liliana Linares v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRENDA LILIANA LINARES,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-72570
Agency No. A206-914-408
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 14, 2023 **
Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Brenda Liliana Linares, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her 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
MAR 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-72570
(“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 Linares 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 Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, 990
F.3d 1173, 1180 (9th Cir. 2021) (“Social distinction requires ‘those with a common
immutable characteristic [to be] set apart, or distinct, from other persons within the
society in some significant way.’” (internal quotations and citations omitted)).
Thus, Linares’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
In light of this disposition, we do not reach Linares’ remaining contentions
regarding her asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Simeonov v.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-72570
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required
to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Linares 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); Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d
829, 835-36 (9th Cir. 2011) (possibility of torture too speculative).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --