Maria Emilia Murcia Gutierrez; Ashley Michelle Mejia Murcia v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA EMILIA MURCIA
GUTIERREZ; ASHLEY MICHELLE
MEJIA MURCIA,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1920
Agency Nos.
A209-482-417
A209-482-418
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 6, 2024**
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, FRIEDLAND, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
Maria Emilia Murcia Gutierrez and her minor daughter (collectively
“Petitioners”) are natives and citizens of El Salvador. They petition for review of a
* 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 8 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-1920
decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the Immigration Judge’s
denial of their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Even assuming that the extortion by gang members rose to the level of
persecution or that Petitioners established a well-founded fear of future
persecution, Petitioners fail to demonstrate any nexus to membership in a
cognizable particular social group . Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that Petitioners’ proposed social group—“women who are targets of
gang violence and extortion due to having minor children who are vulnerable to
being raped, killed, or kidnapped”—lacks social distinction. Villegas Sanchez v.
Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1181 (9th Cir. 2021). Petitioners have not pointed to any
“evidence showing that society in general perceives, considers, or recognizes ” the
members of their proposed group as a group. Id. at 1180–81 (quoting Matter of W-
G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208, 217 (BIA 2014)). Accordingly, we deny the petition as
to the asylum and withholding of removal claims.
1 The BIA affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) without
opinion, so we review the IJ’s decision as if it were the BIA’s decision. Antonio v.
Garland, 58 F.4th 1067, 1072 (9th Cir. 2023). We refer to the BIA and IJ
collectively as the “agency.”

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-1920
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that
Petitioners are ineligible for CAT protection. The record does not compel the
conclusion that it is more likely than not that Petitioners will be tortured if they
return to El Salvador given that Petitioners were never subject to any physical
harm and that their immediate family members have lived in relative safety in El
Salvador—closer to the center of the city than Petitioners did—without any
incidents with gangs. Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1217 (9th Cir. 2018)
(stating standards for CAT protection); Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 893
(9th Cir. 2020) (explaining that an applicant’s ability to relocate within the country
is relevant to the CAT inquiry). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to the CAT
claim.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --