Milagro Suyapa Morales- Salinas; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MILAGRO SUYAPA MORALES-
SALINAS; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 23-1064
Agency Nos.
A097-544-068
A206-758-653
A206-758-654
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2024**
Before: FERNANDEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Milagro Suyapa Morales-Salinas and her children, natives and citizens of
Honduras, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) orders dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
* 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
FEB 29 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 23-1064
denying the childrens’ applications for asylum, and petitioners’ 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 (9th Cir. 2020).
We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Id. at 1241-
42. We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determinations that petitioners
failed to establish they were or would be persecuted on account of their
membership in the proposed particular social group of “immediate family member
of – Wualter Murillo Flores,” or any other protected ground. See Ayala v. Holder,
640 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th Cir. 2011) (even if membership in a particular social
group is established, an applicant must still show that “persecution was or will be
on account of his membership in such group”).
The BIA did not err in concluding that Morales-Salinas failed to establish
the cognizability of her particular social group of “parents of children targeted for
recruitment.” 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

-- 2 of 4 --

3 23-1064
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 Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2020)
(“The particularity element requires characteristics that provide a clear benchmark
for determining who falls within the group,” and “[t]he group must also be discrete
and have definable boundaries—it must not be amorphous, overbroad, diffuse, or
subjective.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
Thus, the children’s asylum claims fail. Because petitioners failed to
establish any nexus to a protected ground, they also failed to satisfy the standard
for withholding of removal. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60
(9th Cir. 2017).
Because petitioners do not contest the BIA’s determination that they waived
challenge to the IJ’s dispositive determination that they did not show they would
be tortured by or with the consent or acquiesce of the government, we do not
address it. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013).
We do not address petitioners’ remaining contentions as to the merits of their CAT
claims because the BIA did not deny relief on these grounds. See Santiago-
Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision
of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).”

-- 3 of 4 --

4 23-1064
Because petitioners do not challenge the agency’s determinations regarding
their remaining gender and family-based particular social groups, humanitarian
asylum, lack of jurisdiction based on insufficient notice, and due process
contentions, we do not address them. See Lopez-Vasquez, 706 F.3d at 1079-80.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --