Arteaga Silva v. Blanche

── Arteaga Silva v. Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARGHY JULIETH ARTEAGA SILVA; No. 25-5089 R. S. C. A.; L. D. A. S., Agency Nos. A241-749-618 Petitioners, A241-749-619 A241-749-620 v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 18, 2026** Pasadena, California Before: BENNETT, KOH, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges. Petitioners, Marghy Julieth Arteaga Silva and her two minor daughters, are natives and citizens of Colombia.1 They petition for review of an order 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 previously granted Respondent’s unopposed motion to submit this case on the briefs and record (Dkt. No. 23). 1 The minor Petitioners sought asylum as derivative beneficiaries. They also filed their own applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal of an immigration judge’s (IJ’s) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under CAT. “We review only the BIA’s opinion, except to the extent that it expressly adopted portions of the IJ’s decision.” Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Rayamajhi v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 1241, 1243 (9th Cir. 2019)). We generally “review the BIA’s denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence.” Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation modified). “We review legal questions, including questions of statutory interpretation, de novo.” Lopez v. Garland, 116 F.4th 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 2024). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. 1. The agency did not err in denying Petitioners’ applications for asylum and withholding of removal. When an applicant seeks asylum or withholding of removal based on membership in a “particular social group” (PSG), the applicant must demonstrate (1) “the existence of a cognizable [PSG],” (2) “his membership in that [PSG],” and (3) “a risk of persecution on account of his membership in the specified [PSG].” Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1132 n.3 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208, 223 (B.I.A. 2014)). “[T]o establish that a proposed under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on the same material facts as the adult Petitioner’s application. The agency considered Petitioners’ applications together, so we do the same here. 2 25-5089 social group is cognizable for purposes of withholding of removal, an applicant must show that the proposed social group 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) (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (B.I.A. 2014)). The BIA’s conclusion regarding whether there is evidence of these factors “is a question of fact that we review for substantial evidence.” See id. at 1242. But the ultimate question—whether, given those facts, there