Jose Angel Vides Hernandez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ANGEL VIDES HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 21-1241
Agency No.
A205-718-830
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 10, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: SANCHEZ and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges, and DONATO, District
Judge.***
Jose Angel Vides Hernandez (Vides Hernandez), a native and citizen of
El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA)
decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for
* 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).
*** The Honorable James Donato, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
FILED
JUL 12 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-1241
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing the
agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de
novo, see Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 632 (9th Cir. 2022), we deny
the petition for review.
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determinations that Vides
Hernandez’s proposed particular social groups— “Salvadorian males who have
adopted all of the American customs the United States has to offer,”
“Salvadorians fearing recruitment efforts from the gangs of El Salvador,” and
“Young Salvadorian males”—lacked particularity and/or social distinction. We
have previously rejected similar proposed social groups for the same reasons.
See, e.g., Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1139–40 (9th Cir. 2016) (affirming
BIA’s finding that proposed social group “deportees from the United States to
El Salvador” lacked particularity); Matter of S-E-G-, 24 I & N. Dec. 579, 584,
588 (BIA 2008) (concluding that social group “Salvadoran youth who have
been subjected to recruitment efforts by MS-13 and who have rejected or
resisted membership in the gang based on their own personal, moral, and
religious opposition to the gang’s values and activities” lacked social visibility);
Mendoza-Alvarez v. Holder, 714 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2013) (noting that
the particularity requirement considers whether the group’s boundaries are too
amorphous to be considered a social group). Because Vides Hernandez failed
to establish a cognizable social group, he necessarily failed to establish

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-1241
eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Reyes, 842 F.3d at 1132
n.3.
2. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Vides Hernandez was not subject to past torture and there is no
evidence that he faces a particularized risk of torture if returned to El Salvador.
He presented no evidence that the gang members who killed one of his brothers
in 2006 and threatened another in 2015 acted with the consent or acquiescence
of any government official. See Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 891
(9th Cir. 2021) (record did not compel finding that petitioner will more likely
than not experience torture by or with acquiescence of government official
based on evidence that petitioner’s uncle was killed for unspecified reasons and
generalized violence in Honduras). Vides Hernandez acknowledges the
Salvadorian authorities’ efforts to remedy gang violence, but states they are
generally ineffective. A showing of general ineffectiveness is not sufficient to
compel a conclusion of government acquiescence under CAT. See Garcia-
Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --