MEMORANDUM **
Alexander Antonio Campos-Duarte, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agencys factual findings, including determinations regarding social distinction. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo the legal question of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIAs interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Id. We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agencys determination that Campos-Duarte failed to establish that his proposed social group is socially distinct. See id. at 1243 (substantial evidence supported the agencys determination that petitioners proposed social group was not cognizable because of the absence of society-specific evidence of social distinction). Therefore, the BIA did not err in concluding that Campos-Duarte did not establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular social group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question’ ” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). Thus, Campos-Duartes withholding of removal claim fails.
Substantial evidence also supports the BIAs denial of CAT relief because Campos-Duarte failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.