Karla Cortez-Meza v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 22 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KARLA YANIRA CORTEZ-MEZA, No. 21-70482 Petitioner, Agency No. A202-053-872 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 16, 2023** Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Karla Yanira Cortez-Meza, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture * 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). (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, including determinations regarding social distinction. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). 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. Id. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen or to remand. Cui v. Garland, 13 F.4th 991, 995 (9th Cir. 2021). We review de novo claims of due process violations. Benedicto v. Garland, 12 F.4th 1049, 1058 (9th Cir. 2021). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not err in concluding that Cortez-Meza did not 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))); see also Conde Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1243 (substantial evidence supported the agency's determination that petitioner's proposed social group was not cognizable because of the absence of society- specific evidence of social distinction). Thus, Cortez-Meza’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. 2 21-70482  Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Cortez-Meza 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); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009) (no likelihood of torture). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen and remand where petitioner failed to establish prima facie eligibility for relief. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228 (9th Cir. 2016) (BIA may deny a motion to reopen for failure to establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought). Cortez-Meza’s claim that the agency violated due process by failing to provide a reasoned decision fails because she has not shown error. See Padilla- Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a due- process claim, a petitioner must demonstrate both a violation of rights and prejudice.”); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA need not write an exegesis on every contention). Cortez-Meza’s contention that the immigration judge lacked jurisdiction over her proceedings is foreclosed by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (lack of hearing information in notice 3 21-70482 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). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 4 21-70482