Cordova-Mejia v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 28, 2025
• Docket: 24-1941
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 28 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDGAR ALEXANDER CORDOVA- No. 24-1941 MEJIA; et al., Agency Nos. A209-296-914 Petitioners, A209-296-915 A209-297-160 v. A209-297-161 PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 22, 2025**

Before: GRABER, H.A. THOMAS, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Edgar Alexander Cordova-Mejia, his two minor children, and his adult

stepson, Jairo Resiere Henrriquez-Castro, natives and citizens of El Salvador,

petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing

their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their 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). asylum and adult petitioners’ applications for withholding of removal and

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the legal question of whether a

particular social group is cognizable, and review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th

Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in finding that petitioners did not show they are

members of a cognizable 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 Diaz-Torres v. Barr, 963 F.3d 976, 980-82

(9th Cir. 2020) (record did not contain evidence that the relevant society viewed

petitioner’s proposed particular social groups as distinct).

Petitioners do not challenge the agency’s determinations that their past harm

did not rise to the level of persecution, that they lack a well-founded fear of future

persecution on account of family membership, and that adult petitioners failed to

establish eligibility for withholding of removal or CAT protection, so we do not

address these issues. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th

2 24-1941 Cir. 2013).

Thus, petitioners’ asylum claims and adult petitioners’ withholding of

removal and CAT claims fail.

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 24-1941