Anastacio W. Hernandez Cox, Et. Al v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANASTACIO W. HERNANDEZ COX,
ET. AL,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1933
Agency Nos.
A208-905-248
A208-975-970
A208-905-247
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2024**
Pasadena, California
Before: R. NELSON, VANDYKE, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
Anastacio W. Hernandez Cox, Dominga Eulogia Hernandez Bac, and Irlanda
Isabel Hernandez-Hernandez seek review of a Board of Immigration Appeals
(“BIA”) decision affirming a decision by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying
* 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
APR 8 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
When reviewing final orders of the BIA, we apply a highly deferential
substantial evidence standard of review. See Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th
742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022). When “the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we review
both decisions.” Garcia-Martinez v. Sessions, 886 F.3d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 2018).
Under the substantial evidence standard, the agency’s “findings of facts are
conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.” Ruiz-Colmenares, 25 F.4th at 748 (citation omitted). All questions of
law are reviewed de novo. Id.
The agency concluded that, assuming arguendo that Petitioners’ claimed
experiences rose to the level of past persecution, Petitioners were nonetheless
ineligible for relief because the particular social groups (“PSG”) they put forward
were not cognizable. To be eligible for asylum, an applicant must show a likelihood
of “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion,
nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(42)(A). Petitioners asserted that they were members of three PSGs: (1)
women perceived to have financial means, (2) professionally employed individuals,
and (3) family members of professionally employed individuals. Cognizable PSGs
must have three key elements: (1) a shared immutable characteristic, (2)

-- 2 of 3 --

3
particularity, and (3) social distinction. See Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 227,
237 (BIA 2014). The agency did not err in concluding that none of these PSGs meet
the particularity or social distinction requirements. There was no evidence in the
record to suggest that Guatemalan society sees any of these categories as distinct
social groups within that society. Furthermore, the agency found that “financial
means” and “professionally employed” were vague and undefined. Consequently,
the agency did not err in concluding that Petitioners’ proposed PSGs are not
cognizable.
The agency also did not error in determining that the Petitioners were not
entitled to CAT relief. To obtain CAT relief, a person must show that it is more
likely than not that he will be tortured upon returning to the country of removal. 8
C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). The only evidence submitted to support Petitioners’ CAT
claim was a country conditions report. This report only discussed general evidence
of violence and crime in Guatemala. The agency correctly noted that such
generalized evidence is not enough to establish CAT eligibility. Thus, CAT relief
was properly denied.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --