Hurtado Perez v. Blanche

── Hurtado Perez v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 24 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LISSETH ANDREA HURTADO PEREZ, No. 25-808 Agency No. Petitioner, A201-418-103 v. MEMORANDUM* TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 22, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: HIGGINSON, NGUYEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.*** Lisseth Andrea Hurtado-Perez (“Hurtado-Perez”), a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision * 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 Stephen A. Higginson, United States Circuit Judge for the Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, sitting by designation. dismissing her appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) protection. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Hurtado- Perez failed to raise a cognizable particular social group (“PSG”). To be cognizable, a PSG 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.” Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014)). “Where, as here, the Board incorporates the IJ’s decision into its own without citing Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), this court will review the IJ’s decision to the extent incorporated.” Medina-Lara v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2014). We review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and “both [its] underlying factual findings and [its] application of the INA to those findings” for substantial evidence. Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, 146 S. Ct. 845, 851 (2026). The record does not compel the conclusion that any of Hurtado-Perez’s proposed PSGs are recognized by Salvadoran society. Social distinction requires “evidence showing that society in general perceives, considers, or recognizes 2 25-808 persons sharing the particular characteristic to be a group.” Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1180–81 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208, 217 (BIA 2014)). Here, the record contains no evidence that Salvadoran society viewed Hurtado-Perez’s PSGs as distinct.1 Hurtado-Perez relies on Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), to argue that she is particularly vulnerable because she witnessed criminals or security forces murder members of her family. But unlike the petitioner in Henriquez-Rivas, Hurtado-Perez did not publicly testify against anyone in criminal proceedings. 707 F.3d at 1092 (noting the petitioner made his “social visibility” apparent by publicly testifying against gang members in court). Nor did she report the perpetrators’ identities to the police. She also presents no evidence that