Blanca Estrada-Contreras v. Merrick Garland, 19-72754

Petitioners Blanca Eduvina Estrada-Contreras and her daughter Dayana Elisa Canizalez-Estrada, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the BIA’s dismissal of their appeal.
They applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT); an IJ denied relief and the BIA dismissed the appeal.
The agency concluded the petitioners’ proposed "particular social group" is not cognizable under the governing test for asylum/withholding claims.
The IJ also purportedly failed to advise the daughter about potential Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) eligibility; petitioners raised that claim on review.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed legal questions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence, denied in part and dismissed in part the petition, and kept a stay of removal until issuance of the mandate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether petitioners’ proposed particular social group is cognizable for asylum/withholding	Petitioners argued their proposed group meets the criteria for a particular social group	BIA/Government argued the group fails the M-E-V-G test (no immutable characteristic/particularity/social distinctness)	Court affirmed: group not cognizable; asylum and withholding fail
Whether the agency erred legally or ignored evidence / due process claim	Estrada-Contreras contended the BIA/IJ misstated law or ignored evidence, violating due process	Government argued agency adequately considered evidence and announced its decision	Court rejected petitioners’ contentions; no reversible due process or legal error
Whether CAT relief should have been granted	Petitioners argued she is more likely than not to be tortured if returned	Government argued future torture was speculative and lacked government consent/acquiescence	Substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief; possibility of torture too speculative
Whether the court has jurisdiction to review IJ’s alleged failure to advise about SIJ eligibility	Petitioners asked federal review of IJ’s alleged failure to advise Canizalez-Estrada about SIJ eligibility	Government argued the claim was not raised to the agency and is therefore unreviewable	Court lacks jurisdiction to consider SIJ-advice claim; claim dismissed

Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238 (9th Cir. 2020) (standard of review: de novo for legal questions with deference to BIA interpretations)
Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016) (applies criteria for cognizable particular social groups)
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency must adequately consider evidence and announce decision)
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2000) (standards for due process error in immigration proceedings)
Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2014) (de novo review of due process claims in immigration cases)
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009) (CAT standard: likelihood of torture more likely than not)
Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (future torture that is speculative is insufficient for CAT relief)
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency)