NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 23 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CLAUDIA ESMERALDA PORTILLO; et No. 16-72257 al.,

Agency Nos. A206-848-818

Petitioners, A206-848-819

A206-848-799 v. A206-848-800 MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 17, 2022** Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Claudia Esmeralda Portillo and her children, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum and denying Portillo’s applications for 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). removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo the legal question of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Id. at 1241. We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm Portillo experienced in El Salvador, even considered cumulatively, did not rise to the level of persecution. See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Persecution . . . is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The agency did not err in concluding that Portillo did not establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular social group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the 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’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also Diaz-

2 16-72257 Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1080 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[A] particular social group must exist independently of the harm asserted.” (internal citation omitted)); Conde Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1243 (proposed social group not cognizable given absence of society-specific evidence of social distinction).

Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim and Portillo’s withholding of removal claim fail.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because Portillo failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject as unsupported by the record Portillo’s contentions that the agency applied an incorrect legal standard or otherwise erred in the analysis of her CAT claim.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 16-72257