Angela Noemy Martinez De Rosales; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANGELA NOEMY MARTINEZ DE
ROSALES; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-71816
Agency Nos. A202-161-911
A202-161-912
A202-161-913
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 8, 2022**
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Angela Noemy Martinez de Rosales and her minor children, natives and
citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge (“IJ”)
decision denying their application for asylum, and Martinez de Rosales’s
* 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
DEC 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention
Against Torture (“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 factual findings for substantial evidence. Id.
at 1241. We deny the petition for review.
The BIA did not err in concluding that petitioners 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))). Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
determination that petitioners otherwise failed to establish they were or would be
persecuted on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,
1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by
criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus
to a protected ground”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim, and Martinez de
Rosales’s withholding of removal claim fail.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT protection
because Martinez de Rosales 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).
Petitioners’ opposed motion to remand this case to the BIA (Docket Entry
No. 17) is denied. See United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188,
1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (lack of hearing information in notice 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).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --