Cruz Pineda v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 7, 2025
• Docket: 23-1390
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 7 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CORINA MARITZA CRUZ PINEDA, No. 23-1390 Agency No. Petitioner, A094-829-648 v. MEMORANDUM* PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted February 4, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: MILLER, LEE, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Corina Maritza Cruz Pineda, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions

for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her

appeal from an order of the immigration judge denying her applications for

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 deny the petition.

Because the Board adopted the decision of the immigration judge and cited

Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (B.I.A. 1994), we review both the Board’s

decision and the immigration judge’s decision. Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25

F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022).

The agency rejected Cruz Pineda’s application for withholding of removal

for three independent reasons: first, she failed to demonstrate past persecution or a

clear probability of future persecution; second, her proposed particular social group

of “intimate partners of police officers” was not socially distinct; and third, she did

not show that she was still a member of that group. In this court, Cruz Pineda does

not discuss the third reason. And although she argues that her proposed social

group is “cognizable,” a cognizable social group must be “(1) composed of

members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with

particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.” Akosung v.

Barr, 970 F.3d 1095, 1103 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. &

N. Dec. 227, 237 (B.I.A. 2014)). Cruz Pineda does not address social distinction,

the only requirement that the agency determined she did not meet. She therefore

has not meaningfully challenged the agency’s rejection of her proposed particular

social group, and she has forfeited her challenge to the denial of her application for

withholding of removal. See Velasquez-Gasper v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th

2 23-1390 Cir. 2020).

Similarly, the agency rejected Cruz Pineda’s application for CAT protection

for two independent reasons: first, she did not demonstrate that she was at

particular risk of severe harm if returned to El Salvador; and second, she did not

show that any harm would be inflicted by or with the consent or acquiescence of

Salvadoran public officials. In this court, Cruz Pineda asserts that there is

“widespread violence and lawlessness” in El Salvador from which the Salvadoran

government “refus[es] to protect its citizens,” and she references a country

conditions report supporting that assertion. But an applicant for CAT relief “must

show that any risk of torture is particularized,” Colin-Villavicencio v. Garland, 108

F.4th 1103, 1115 (9th Cir. 2024), meaning that she faces a “risk of torture . . .

higher than that faced by all . . . citizens” of the country to which she would be

returned, Ruiz-Colmenares, 25 F.4th at 751. The immigration judge noted that

Cruz Pineda “has not presented evidence that she, more than any other Salvadoran

citizens, would be particularly at risk of being tortured in El Salvador.” Cruz

Pineda has made no argument in this court that her risk of harm is particularized.

She therefore has not meaningfully challenged the judge’s harm determination, and

she has forfeited her challenge to the denial of her application for CAT protection.

See Velasquez-Gasper, 976 F.3d at 1065.

PETITION DENIED.

3 23-1390