Karla Yanira Cortez-Meza v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KARLA YANIRA CORTEZ-MEZA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-70482
Agency No. A202-053-872
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 16, 2023**
Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Karla Yanira Cortez-Meza, 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
MAY 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 21-70482
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, including determinations regarding social
distinction. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (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. We review for abuse of discretion
the denial of a motion to reopen or to remand. Cui v. Garland, 13 F.4th 991, 995
(9th Cir. 2021). We review de novo claims of due process violations. Benedicto v.
Garland, 12 F.4th 1049, 1058 (9th Cir. 2021). We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in concluding that Cortez-Meza did not 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 Conde Quevedo, 947 F.3d at
1243 (substantial evidence supported the agency's determination that petitioner's
proposed social group was not cognizable because of the absence of society-
specific evidence of social distinction). Thus, Cortez-Meza’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.

-- 2 of 4 --

3 21-70482
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because Cortez-Meza 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); Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen and
remand where petitioner failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See
Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228 (9th Cir. 2016) (BIA may deny a
motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief
sought).
Cortez-Meza’s claim that the agency violated due process by failing to
provide a reasoned decision fails because she has not shown error. See Padilla-
Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due-
process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and
prejudice.”); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA
need not write an exegesis on every contention).
Cortez-Meza’s contention that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction
over her proceedings is foreclosed by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th
1187, 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (lack of hearing information in notice

-- 3 of 4 --

4 21-70482
to appear does not deprive immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction, and
8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) is satisfied when later notice provides hearing information).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --