Gonzalez Magana v. Blanche

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 10, 2026
• Docket: 25-5929
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 10 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GLADYS YURITZI GONZALEZ No. 25-5929 MAGANA; JAIME BARRAGAN AYALA; Agency Nos. J. G. B.-G.; L. B.-G., A245-435-486 A087-433-852 Petitioners, A245-435-505 A245-435-527 v.

TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney MEMORANDUM* General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted June 8, 2026** Seattle, Washington

Before: HAWKINS, W. FLETCHER, and TUNG, Circuit Judges.

Gladys Yuritzi Gonzalez Magana, Jaime Barragan Ayala, and their two minor

children, all natives and citizens of Mexico, seek review of a decision of the Board

* 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). of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing their appeal of the decision of an

Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying their applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition.

Petitioners challenge only the agency’s conclusion that their proposed

particular social group (“PSG”) of “Mexican orchard farm workers” was not

cognizable. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Petitioners

failed to demonstrate that Mexican society recognizes orchard farm workers as a

socially distinct group. See Rodriguez-Zuniga v. Garland, 69 F.4th 1012, 1016 (9th

Cir. 2023) (“The [agency’s] conclusion regarding social distinction—whether there

is evidence that a specific society recognizes a social group—is a question of fact

that we review for substantial evidence.” (quoting Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d

1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2020))).

Although the country conditions report that Petitioners rely upon mentions the

agricultural industry when discussing generally applicable labor laws, the report

does not shed light on whether society views orchard farm workers as a socially

distinct group. The only other piece of evidence that Petitioners rely upon is a news

article, which they contend demonstrates that the cartel views orchard farm workers

as a distinct group. But social distinction is assessed from the perspective of society

rather than the perspective of the persecutor. See Diaz-Torres v. Barr, 963 F.3d 976,

2 25-5929 980 (9th Cir. 2020). Consequently, Petitioners have not identified evidence in the

record that compels a conclusion contrary to the one reached by the agency. See id.

at 980–81.

Because Petitioners failed to raise landownership as an element of their PSG

in the agency proceedings, they failed to exhaust the landownership-related

arguments raised in their opening brief. See Umana-Escobar v. Garland, 69 F.4th

544, 550 (9th Cir. 2023). Petitioners also waived any challenge to the agency’s

denial of their CAT claim by failing to raise it in their opening brief. See Corro-

Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013).

PETITION DENIED.1

1 The motion for stay of removal [Dkt. Entry No. 3] is DENIED as moot.

3 25-5929