Asylum & withholding of removal; The Immigration & Nationality Act (INA); Whether petitioner established that she was a member of a particular social group (PSG) subject to persecution by gangs in her home country; 8 USC §§ 1101(a)(42) & 1231(b)(3)(A); Whether the proposed PSG satisfied the “particularity” requirement for a cognizable group; Umaña-Ramos v Holder; “Internal relocation,” 8 CFR § 1208.13(b)(2)(ii); Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA); Immigration Judge (IJ)

The court upheld the BIA’s denial of petitioner’s application for asylum and withholding of removal where the PSGs on which she relied were too expansive and diverse to qualify as cognizable groups under the INA. Petitioner and her daughters entered the country illegally from El Salvador. At the removal hearing, she sought asylum, with her daughters as derivative beneficiaries. She claimed she was a member of a PSG that included Salvadoran women, single Salvadoran women who are working professionals, and salon owners in El Salvador. and that if returned to El Salvador, she would be the target of gang violence. The BIA denied her application, upholding the IJ’s determination that she had not produced sufficient evidence that her PSG was a cognizable group under the INA, and that she had not shown she was unable to relocate to a different part of El Salvador. Petitioner argued that her proposed PSGs qualified her for asylum and withholding of removal. However, the court explained that her PSG groups based on “Salvadoran women” and “single professional Salvadoran women” were too vague and nebulous to satisfy the particularity requirement. The court noted that it has previously rejected PSG groups defined by “expansive demographics” like gender, age, occupation, economic status and nationality. She maintained that the BIA erred by ruling that she had failed to show why internal relocation was unreasonable. But the court agreed that she had not even established whether her harassers were members of a gang, or whether they would attempt to find her if she relocated. Additionally, she testified that “neither she nor her daughters have ever been physically harmed in El Salvador, and that her mother and sisters continue to safely reside there . . . .”