NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 19 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA ARACELI TORRES VALDIVIA, No. 15-73499 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-973-357 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted September 13, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: BERZON, R. NELSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Maria Araceli Torres Valdivia seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s decision to deny her request for withholding of removal or, in the alternative, relief under the Convention Against Torture. We grant her petition with respect to her request for withholding of removal, and deny her * 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). petition with respect to the claim under the Convention Against Torture. Because the BIA conducted its own review of the evidence and law in this case, “our review is limited to the BIA’s decision.” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (quoting Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953, 957 (9th Cir. 2006)). “In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal determinations de novo. Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1087 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc); see also Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2014). 1. The BIA held that Torres was not eligible for withholding of removal because Torres’s asserted particular social group, “all women in Mexico,” lacks particularity and is not socially distinct. We conclude that the court’s reasoning is legally erroneous under the BIA’s and this circuit’s precedents. The BIA first concluded that “all women in Mexico” lacks particularity because this group “could include persons of any age or background.” We have already rejected this line of reasoning in a nearly identical context. See Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 669 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 797 (9th Cir. 2005); Ticas-Guillen v. Whitaker, 744 F. App’x 410, 410 (9th Cir. 2018). “[T]he size and breadth of a group alone does not preclude a 2 group from qualifying as [a particular] social group.” Perdomo, 611 F.3d at 669. Indeed, both the BIA and our court have recognized that particular social groups can include people of a range of ages and backgrounds. For example, we have held that former police officers, landowners, and gay men could each constitute a particular social group. See Sanjaa v. Sessions, 863 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir. 2017); Cordoba v. Holder, 726 F.3d 1106, 1114 (9th Cir. 2013), Karouni v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1163, 1172 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Perdomo, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals