The Ninth Circuit has determined that proposed social groups of “Mexican professionals who refuse to cooperate with drug cartels” and “Mexican agronomists who refuse to help cultivate drugs” lack social distinction. “Nothing in the record addresses whether Mexican society views either of Mr. Diaz-Torres’s proposed social groups as distinct. No laws or proposed legislation so indicate. Nor do any country conditions reports or news articles mention such a group.”
“Moreover, to the extent some of Mr. Diaz-Torres’s testimony does relate to the social distinction requirement, it did not satisfy his burden of proof as to that element. After all, the social distinction requirement is concerned with how others view Mr. Diaz-Torres—not how he believes others view him. Objective evidence ‘such as country conditions reports, expert witness testimony, and press accounts of discriminatory laws and policies, historical animosities, and the like may establish that a group exists and is perceived as ‘distinct’ or ‘other’ in a particular society.’ By contrast, the testimony of the applicant alone is insufficient to establish the social distinction of a proposed group unless the petitioner ‘satisfies the trier of fact that the [petitioner’s] testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate’ that the petitioner’s proposed group is socially distinct.”
The full text of Diaz-Torres v. Barr can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/06/29/18-70141.pdf