FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY 22 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIRNA ROSILLO VILLEGAS, No. 13-72946
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-312-931
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 10, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and WILKEN,*** Senior
District Judge.
*
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 Claudia Wilken, United States Senior District Judge
for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
Mirna Rosillo Villegas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) decision dismissing her
appeal of an order by an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying her applications for
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
As the parties are well aware of the facts, we do not reiterate them here.
I
Villegas contends that the BIA erred by denying her request for withholding
of removal based on her asserted membership in two proposed social groups: (1)
female merchants who are vulnerable and extorted by gang members, and (2)
Salvadorans returning to El Salvador after a period of time spent in the United
States.
The BIA did not err by concluding that Villegas’s first proposed social
group–female merchants who are vulnerable and extorted by gang members–lacks
sufficient particularity and social distinction to be eligible. See Rios v. Lynch, 807
F.3d 1123, 1127S28 (9th Cir. 2015). Villegas offered no evidence to prove that the
asserted group is sufficiently particular, namely that it “can accurately be described
in a manner sufficiently distinct that the group would be recognized, in the society
in question, as a discrete class of persons.” Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d
2
1081, 1091 (9th Cir. 2013). Additionally, Villegas offered no evidence that the
proposed group is socially distinct in El Salvador.
Villegas’s second proposed social group–Salvadorans returning to El
Salvador after a period of time spent in the United States–is also insufficient. We
have previously held that functionally identical proposed social groups were
defined too broadly to qualify as cognizable. See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816
F.3d 1226, 1228S29 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that the proposed group of “imputed
wealthy Americans” is too broad to qualify as cognizable); Delgado-Ortiz v.
Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151S52 (9th Cir. 2010) (same outcome for proposed
group of “returning Mexicans from the United States”).
Furthermore, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the
harm Villegas suffered in the past was based on a pecuniary interest rather than her
membership in any alleged social group. Accordingly, Villegas failed to prove that
her membership in either proposed social group is a reason for her alleged past and
future persecution. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 361, 364 (9th Cir.
2017).
II
Villegas next asserts that the district court erred by denying her application
for protection under the CAT.
3
Villegas’s blanket assertion that she “will be subject to rape and robbery by
the gangs and/or the corrupt police who work hand in hand with the gangs” is not
supported by any individualized evidence indicating that she would be tortured
upon removal to El Salvador. In fact, her own testimony that public officials could
have protected her from prior attacks weighs against such assertion. Furthermore,
we have previously held that the Salvadoran government does not acquiesce in
gang violence. See Quintanilla Orellana v. Holder, 593 Fed. App’x 616, 619 (9th
Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the BIA did not err in denying Villegas’s petition for
protection under the CAT.
The petition for review is DENIED.
4