Vazquez-Trujillo v. Blanche

── Vazquez-Trujillo v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LORENA VAZQUEZ-TRUJILLO, No. 22-1280 Agency No. A208-305-038 Petitioner, v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 22, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: FRIEDLAND and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and SCARSI,*** District Judge. Petitioner Lorena Vazquez-Trujillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of * 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 Mark C. Scarsi, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. We review the agency’s legal conclusions, including whether a proposed particular social group is cognizable, de novo. Macedo Templos v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 877, 879 (9th Cir. 2021). We review the agency’s findings of fact for substantial evidence. Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 632 (9th Cir. 2022). Under substantial evidence review, “factual findings are ‘conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Manzano v. Garland, 104 F.4th 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Flores Molina, 37 F.4th at 632). 1. We agree with the agency that Petitioner’s proposed social group of “women of low socio-economic status” is not cognizable. To be eligible for asylum and withholding of removal, Petitioner must establish her membership in a particular social group that is “(1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.” Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). The agency concluded that Petitioner’s proposed social group is neither defined with particularity nor socially distinct. With respect to particularity, we agree with the agency that there is not “a clear benchmark for determining who falls within” Petitioner’s proposed social group, and that the group fails to “be discrete and have definable boundaries.” Macedo Templos, 2 22-1280 987 F.3d at 882 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although “the size and breadth of a group alone does not preclude a group from qualifying as [a particular] social group,” Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 669 (9th Cir. 2010), a petitioner must demonstrate that the “group’s boundaries are [not] so amorphous that it cannot be considered a social group.” Mendoza-Alvarez v. Holder, 714 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, what it means to be of “low socio-economic status” is uncertain. Accordingly, Petitioner’s proposed social group is too amorphous to meet the particularity re