MEJIA RAMIREZ DE SANCHEZ, ET AL. V. GARLAND, No. 22-1650 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 15 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EVA NINETH MEJIA RAMIREZ DE SANCHEZ; KATHERINE SANCHEZ MEJIA; GABRIELA GUADALUPE SANCHEZ MEJIA, Petitioners, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-1650 Agency Nos. A212-901-324 A212-901-325 A212-901-328 MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 13, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: WALLACH,*** CHRISTEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Eva Nineth Mejia Ramirez De Sanchez and her two minor daughters, natives * 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 Evan J. Wallach, United States Senior Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation. and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing their appeal of an immigration judge’s order denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We “review legal conclusions de novo” and “review for substantial evidence factual findings underlying the BIA’s determination that a petitioner is not eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief.” Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland, 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and recite them only as necessary. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal based on Mejia Ramirez De Sanchez’s failure to establish her family’s membership in her first proposed particular social group (PSG)—Guatemalan family fleeing gang violence and extortion for refusing to pay rent money— because she did not know whether her extortionists were gang members. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1132 n.3 (9th Cir. 2016) (“An asylum or withholding applicant’s burden includes . . . demonstrating . . . his membership in [the proposed] particular social group . . . .” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s conclusion that Mejia Ramirez De Sanchez’s second proposed PSG—Guatemalan witness of a crime fleeing gang threats for being a potential witness in court against said gang 2 22-1650 members—lacks particularity because it “is not ‘discrete’ and lacks ‘definable boundaries.’” Aguilar-Osorio v. Garland, 991 F.3d 997, 999 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 239 (BIA 2014)) (affirming agency’s conclusion that a proposed group of “witnesses who . . . could testify against gang members based upon what they witnessed” was not cognizable (omission in original)). Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief because Mejia Ramirez De Sanchez did not show the involvement or acquiescence of Guatemalan public officials in the harm she suffered or may suffer in the future. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[A] general ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate and prevent crime will not suffice to show acquiescence.” (citing Garcia–Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2013))). PETITION DENIED. 3 22-1650
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
