NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEXANDER ANTONIO CAMPOS- No. 20-71222
DUARTE,
Agency No. A200-939-266
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 17, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Alexander Antonio Campos-Duarte, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against
*
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).
Torture (“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 deny the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Campos-
Duarte failed to establish that his proposed social group is socially distinct. See id.
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). Therefore, the BIA did not err in
concluding that Campos-Duarte did not establish membership in a cognizable
particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016)
(in order 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))). Thus, Campos-Duarte’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because
2 20-71222
Campos-Duarte failed to show it is more likely than not he 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).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 20-71222