Evelin Maribel SOLIS-GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-4116.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
June 18, 2013.
BEFORE: MOORE and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges; and SARGUS, District Judge.
Evelin Solis-Gonzalez petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge‘s decision to deny her asylum application. We deny the petition.
Solis-Gonzalez is a native and citizen of Guatemala. She entered the United States without inspection in January 2010. Days lаter, the government charged her as removable for being present in the United States without having been admitted or paroled. See
Petitioner claims that she was persecuted in Guatemala—and fears that the рersecution will continue should she return—“on account of” her “membership in a particular social group.”
The term “particular social group” is not defined in the asylum statute, but several Board dеcisions have given it meaning. We have acknowledged the Board‘s use of the following criteriа for “particular social group” recognition: (1) a shared “immutable” or “fundamental” characteristic; (2) “social visibility“; (3) “particularity“; and (4) the group “cannot be defined exclusively” by the faсt that its members have been subject to harm. Kante v. Holder, 634 F.3d 321, 327 (6th Cir.2011) (citing Matter of A—M—E & J—G—U, 24 I. & N. Dec. 69, 74 (BIA 2007)). We defer to the reasonable boundaries that thе Board creates with respect to the phrase, both generally and in particular determinations. See Al-Najar v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 708, 714 (6th Cir.2008); Castellano-Chacon v. INS, 341 F.3d 533, 546 (6th Cir.2003).
Applying this framework, the Board reasonably rejected Solis-Gonzalez‘s proposed social group. As we have stated before, “a social group may not be сircularly defined by the fact that it suffers persecution.” Rreshpja v. Gonzales, 420 F.3d 551, 556 (6th Cir.2005). Rather, those in the group “must share a narrоwing characteristic other than their risk of being persecuted.” Id.; see also Castellano-Chacon, 341 F.3d at 548 (“[S]ociety‘s reaction to а ‘group’ may provide evidence in a specific case that a particular group exists, as long as the reaction by persecutors to members of a particular social group is not the touchstone defining the group.“). This “narrowing” requirement enforces the recognitiоn that “the social group category was not meant to be a ‘catch all’ applicable to all persons fearing persecution.” Matter of C—A—, 23 I. & N. Dec. 951, 960 (BIA 2006) (citation omitted). Choosing to recognize as a cognizable social group those who suffer persecution in their home country wоuld create precisely such a “catch all.”
By defining her proposed social group in terms of those targeted by Guatemalan
Without the сircular aspect of the proposed group, we are left only with Guatemalan youth, or perhaps perceived rich and attractive Guatemalan youth. See Rreshpja, 420 F.3d at 556 (considering the proposed group absent the circularity). A group so defined plainly fails the particularity requirement. See, e.g., id. (noting that legal recognition of a proposed group consisting of “young, attractive Albanian women” would mean that “virtually any young Albanian woman who possesses the subjective criterion of being ‘attractive’ would be eligible for asylum in the United States“); Gomez v. INS, 947 F.2d 660, 664 (2d Cir.1991) (“Possession of broadly-based characteristics such as youth and gender will not by itself endow individuals with membership in a рarticular group.“); Matter of A—M—E & J—G—U, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 76 (“The terms ‘wealthy’ and ‘affluent’ standing alone are too amorphous to provide an adequate benchmark for determining group membership.“). See also Matter of S—E—G—, 24 I. & N. Dec. at 584-86 (group defined as Salvadorian youth who have resisted gang recruitment failed the particularity requirement).
For these reasons, we deny the petition for review.