FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANCISCA VILLEGAS SANCHEZ, No. 16-73745 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A208-595-370

MERRICK GARLAND, Attorney General, OPINION Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted January 12, 2021 San Francisco, California

Filed March 11, 2021

Before: Jay S. Bybee and Ryan D. Nelson, Circuit Judges, and Robert H. Whaley, * District Judge.

Opinion by Judge R. Nelson

* The Honorable Robert H. Whaley, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation. 2 VILLEGAS SANCHEZ V. GARLAND SUMMARY ** Immigration Denying Francisca Villegas Sanchez’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision upholding an immigration judge’s denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal, the panel held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that she failed to establish past harm rising to the level of persecution, and that her proposed social groups were not cognizable. The panel held that Villegas Sanchez did not establish past persecution, where her alleged persecutor issued vague threats, confronted her several times over a period of weeks, did not perform any acts of violence, and never followed through on any of his threats. The panel explained that, though condemnable, the unfulfilled threats were not so overwhelming to necessarily constitute persecution. The panel held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that petitioner’s proposed social groups comprised of “Salvadoran women who refuse to be girlfriends of MS gang members” and “Salvadoran women who refuse to be victims of violent sexual predation of gang members” lacked social distinction. Noting that the government did not contest that the proposed groups satisfy the first social distinction requirement of sharing “a common immutable characteristic,” the panel wrote that women either ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. VILLEGAS SANCHEZ V. GARLAND 3 cannot change, or should not be required to change their gender because it is fundamental to their identity, and women should not be required to change their choice not to submit to gang members and enter into a sexual relationship in order to avoid persecution. The panel concluded that Villegas Sanchez failed to present sufficient evidence to compel the finding that society in general perceives, considers, or recognizes persons sharing her proposed particular characteristics to be a group. Explaining that the social distinction inquiry encompasses principles that will ordinarily demand some type of corroborative, objective evidence other than an applicant’s testimony, the panel concluded that the evidence Villegas Sanchez presented, including country report evidence stating generally that women in El Salvador can be ill-treated, and her aunt’s suggestion that she leave El Salvador, did not compel the conclusion that Salvadoran society perceives women similarly situated to her as a group. The panel also rejected Villegas Sanchez’s assertion that the Board did not perform the required evidence-based inquiry as to whether the relevant society recognized her proposed groups. COUNSEL Teresa A. Reed Dippo (argued), Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, San Francisco, California, for Petitioner. Kathryn M. McKinney (argued), Attorney; Stephen J. Flynn, Assistant Director; Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Respondent. 4 VILLEGAS SANCHEZ V. GARLAND OPINION R. NELSON, Circuit Judge: Francisca Villegas Sanchez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision upholding an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal. Villegas Sanchez argues she suffered past persecution and has a well-founded fear of future persecution based on her membership in the proposed particular social groups of “Salvadoran women who refuse to be girlfriends of MS gang members” and “Salvadoran women who refuse to be victims of violent sexual predation of gang members.” Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s dismissal of her past persecution claim and its conclusion that her proposed particular social groups are not distinct in Salvadoran society, we deny the petition. I Villegas Sanchez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, attempted to enter the United States on October 24, 2015. In secondary inspection, Villegas Sanchez expressed a credible fear of returning to El Salvador and her case was referred to an IJ. Villegas Sanchez conceded her inadmissibility but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. She claimed that, if deported, she would face persecution and torture at the hands of a man, “Cabezon,” whose romantic advances she refused. Villegas Sanchez testified at her IJ removal hearing that after 16 years of being neighbors with Cabezon, her difficulties with him began when he asked her on a date VILLEGAS SANCHEZ V. GARLAND 5 several times in August 2015. 1 After she refused, Cabezon “got mad.” In at least one phone conversation overheard by Villegas Sanchez, Cabezon said: “There is a gal. What are we going to do with her?” Villegas Sanchez believed Cabezon was a member of the MS-13 street gang because of his tattoos, the way he dressed, and the people he associated with. Villegas Sanchez testified that Cabezon threatened her three times over a period of several weeks. Cabezon told Villegas Sanchez that he would send her “to the tomb” if she did not date him; sent her two text messages with images of caskets and asking whether she wanted black or red roses; and ultimately told her he was not “kidding around” and gave her a two-day deadline to respond. Villegas Sanchez did not report Cabezon’s behavior to Salvadoran police because she did not think they would help. Villegas Sanchez left El Salvador two days later, on September 9, 2015, to stay with her mother in California. Villegas Sanchez supplemented her testimony with several reports, including the 2014 U.S. Department of State Human Rights Report for El Salvador, which detailed the country’s handling of violence against women. When Villegas Sanchez told her aunt living in New York about the threats, her aunt advised, “well, the only way was to leave El Salvador.” Relying on this evidence, Villegas Sanchez asserted before the IJ that she experienced past persecution and has a well-founded fear of future persecution based on her membership in one of three proposed particular social “We have endorsed two companion Board decisions that clarified the elements underlying the particular social group analysis: Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227 (BIA 2014) and Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014).” Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 1103 (9th Cir. 2020). “The Board has . . . interpreted the phrase ‘particular social group’ to refer to a group that is ‘(1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.’” Akosung v. Barr, 970 F.3d 1095, 1103 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 237). 8

Social distinction requires “those with a common immutable characteristic [to be] set apart, or distinct, from other persons within the society in some significant way.” Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 238. Specifically, social distinction requires “evidence showing that society in general perceives, considers, or recognizes persons sharing The government does not contest that these proposed groups of “Salvadoran women who refuse to be girlfriends of MS gang members” and “Salvadoran women who refuse to be victims of violent sexual predation of gang members” satisfy the first social distinction requirement of sharing “a common immutable characteristic.” See Matter of M-E-V- G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 238. Women “either cannot change, or should not be required to change” their gender “because it is fundamental to their . . . identit[y] . . . .” See Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 210 (quotation omitted). And women “should not be required to change” their choice not to submit to gang members and enter into a sexual relationship “in order to avoid persecution.” See id. at 213; see also Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 667 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting women in certain vulnerable circumstances can constitute a particular social group).

But Villegas Sanchez has not presented sufficient evidence to compel finding “that society in general perceives, considers, or recognizes persons sharing the particular characteristic to be a group.” Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 217. Importantly, “the social distinction inquiry encompasses principles that will ordinarily demand some type of corroborative, objective evidence” other than Villegas Sanchez’s testimony. Diaz-Torres v. Barr, 963 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir. 2020).

Villegas Sanchez argues mainly that her proposed groups are socially distinct because violence against women, including domestic violence, is a widespread problem in Salvadoran society. But the report cited does not address how Salvadoran society perceives “women who refuse to be girlfriends of MS gang members” or “women who refuse to be victims of violent sexual predation of gang members”

14 VILLEGAS SANCHEZ V. GARLAND distinctly. Rather, the report states generally that women in El Salvador can be ill-treated. These generalized statistics do not compel a finding that these proposed groups are socially distinct. See Diaz-Torres, 963 F.3d at 979 (holding no particular social group where documentary evidence did not show “society views either of the[] groups as distinct”); Conde Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1243 (same); Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1138 (9th Cir. 2016) (same). 9

Villegas Sanchez also cites the fact that her aunt, living in New York, urged her to leave El Salvador. She does not explain how her relative living in New York represents the views of society in El Salvador. And her aunt’s response— “well, the only way was to leave El Salvador”—says nothing about how Salvadoran society, rather than Cabezon specifically, might view Villegas Sanchez distinctly. The BIA considered all the evidence and concluded the record does not “reflect that Salvadoran society perceives women similarly situated to her as a group.” The evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion. Villegas Sanchez’s proposed groups are not “set apart, or distinct, from other persons within the society in some significant way.” Matter of M-E- V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. at 238.

Villegas Sanchez asserts that the BIA “did not perform the required evidence-based inquiry as to whether the relevant society recognizes” her proposed groups, quoting Pirir-Boc, 750 F.3d at 1084. Thus, according to Villegas Sanchez, the BIA’s decision “lacks an adequate statement of the legal or factual bases for resolving the ‘social distinctness’ issue.” This argument is unconvincing.

Pirir-Boc requires only that the BIA does a case-specific analysis and not reject a claim solely based on similarities to other cases. See 750 F.3d at 1084. The BIA did this here. The BIA noted that “the record does not reflect . . . that Salvadoran society perceives women similarly situated to her as a group,” agreeing with the IJ’s similar determination that “the evidence does not show that they are socially distinct within the society in question.” And the BIA demonstrated it reviewed the evidence cited by Villegas Sanchez, noting her “experiences and the general assertion that there is gang violence in El Salvador” later in its decision. Moreover, the BIA explicitly “defer[red] to the Immigration Judge’s factual findings,” which comprehensively recounted the relevant facts, as detailed above.

All indications show that the BIA reviewed the full record, including the portions cited below and before this court, and merely found it lacking. Cf. Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771–72 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting indications that the agency did not review the record “include misstating the record and failing to mention highly probative or potentially dispositive evidence”). The BIA’s “statement of its reasons for denying the petitioner relief [is] adequate for us to conduct our review.” Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Castillo v. INS, 951 F.2d 1117, 1121

16 VILLEGAS SANCHEZ V. GARLAND (9th Cir. 1991)). It “state[d] with sufficient particularity and clarity the reasons for denial of asylum.” Castillo, 951 F.2d at 1121 (citations omitted).

Essentially, Villegas Sanchez asks us to remand because the BIA did not meticulously repeat verbatim every piece of evidence already listed in the IJ’s findings. But the agency “need not discuss each piece of evidence submitted,” Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885, 894 (9th Cir. 2018), even when reviewing CAT claims where regulations “explicitly require . . . consider[ing] ‘all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture,’” Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 705 n.6 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3)). Likewise, the BIA need not discuss each piece of evidence in asylum and withholding of removal claims, especially in a case like this one where it agrees with and adopts the IJ’s factual findings. Adopting Villegas Sanchez’s argument would impermissibly “impose unnecessarily burdensome or technical requirements on the Board.” See Ghaly, 58 F.3d at 1430.

The BIA did not ignore (nor did the IJ’s analysis as adopted by the BIA) any of Villegas Sanchez’s arguments and the complete record supports that the BIA and IJ fully reviewed the evidence. See Montes-Lopez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007). We agree with the Second Circuit, which “do[es] not require . . . that an IJ expressly parse or refute on the record each and every one of a petitioner’s purported explanations . . . .” Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 434 F.3d 144, 159 n.13 (2d Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

IV

Withholding requires that “life or freedom . . . be threatened for a reason” tied to protected grounds, defined in VILLEGAS SANCHEZ V. GARLAND 17

the same way as for asylum. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 358–59 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(C)) (emphasis omitted); Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123, 1124 (9th Cir. 2015). “A failure to satisfy the lower standard of proof required to establish eligibility for asylum therefore necessarily results in a failure to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of deportation.” Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Ghaly, 58 F.3d at 1429). Because Villegas Sanchez is ineligible for asylum, as her proposed particular social groups are not socially distinct, she is ineligible for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.