The court held that Jimenez-Ochoa failed to establish that his proposed particular social group—defined as witnesses to a crime who report the crime to the police—was cognizable under immigration law.
The BIA determined the group lacked social distinction and particularity. The agency concluded that Salvadoran society does not view individuals who merely report crimes to police, without testifying in judicial proceedings, as a distinct social group.
The Ninth Circuit agreed, noting that the proposed group lacked definable boundaries and clear benchmarks for identifying members. The court distinguished the case from Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, which recognized a distinct social group for persons who had testified against gang members in open court.
Jimenez-Ochoa also raised a due process claim, arguing that incompetent translation services prevented him from correcting inconsistencies between his testimony and credible fear interview notes.
The court rejected this argument, finding no prejudice. The BIA had denied his application on independent grounds regarding the cognizability of his social group, meaning that even with better interpretation, the outcome of the hearing would not have changed.
The petition was denied.