NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 15 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA PABLO MATIAS; ROLMO No. 20-70518 JERONIMO PABLO, Agency Nos. A208-302-246 Petitioners, A208-302-247 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted May 7, 2021 Seattle, Washington Before: BOGGS,** BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Petitioners, Maria Pablo Matias (“Pablo”) and her minor son, Rolmo Jeronimo Pablo (“Rolmo”), are natives and citizens of Guatemala, petitioning for review of their motion to reopen immigration proceedings, which was denied as untimely filed * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). For the reasons set forth below, we deny their petition. As set forth in the underlying decision of the immigration judge (“IJ”), Pablo is an indigenous Guatemalan Mam woman. While in Guatemala, she lived with her domestic partner, Andres, and they had a son together, Rolmo. After Rolmo was born, Andres began to beat, insult, and threaten Pablo on a regular basis. He would get mad and threaten to kill her if she and Rolmo did not leave the house. Pablo tried to leave once, going to her parents, but Andres found her and threatened to kill her and Rolmo if they did not return home. Pablo testified that she never reported the abuse because she was embarrassed to tell her family, and the police were far away and did not speak her language. Eventually, Pablo and Rolmo escaped from Andres and came to the United States, in May 2015. They were put into removal proceedings, and Pablo moved for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). She requested protection from persecution based on her membership in the particular social groups of Guatemalan women who are viewed as property and unable to leave a relationship, and of indigenous Guatemalan women who are at risk of femicide. In March 2016, the IJ denied her relief and ordered her removed. On appeal, the BIA held that the IJ erred in finding Pablo was not credible 2 and, on remand, directed the IJ to reassess whether Pablo had articulated a cognizable social group. In August 2017, the IJ issued a second removal order, denying Pablo’s claim for protection on the grounds that neither of her proposed social groups was considered socially distinct and therefore she was not prima facie eligible for relief. Pablo filed a second appeal. In December 2018, the BIA held that her proposed social groups were not cognizable and denied her appeal. Pablo did not petition for review of this decision. When Andres learned that Pablo and Rolmo were being deported back to Guatemala, he renewed his …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals