Case: 21-43, 04/17/2023, DktEntry: 26.1, Page 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 17 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILGER CECILIO GOMEZ PEREZ, No. 21-43 Agency No. A216-400-596 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 13, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: S.R. THOMAS and KOH, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,*** District Judge. On May 16, 2018, Petitioner Wilger Cecilio Gomez Perez (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Guatemala, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. Case: 21-43, 04/17/2023, DktEntry: 26.1, Page 2 of 4 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) assigned to Petitioner’s case denied his applications. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed Petitioner’s appeal, and then sought this Court’s review. Where, as here, the BIA cites Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (B.I.A. 1994), in its decision and does not express disagreement with any part of the IJ’s decision, we review the decisions of both the BIA and the IJ. See Kwong v. Holder, 671 F.3d 872, 876 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1040–41 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc)). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 1. The first issue raised by Petitioner’s appeal is whether the BIA erred in concluding that Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal based on his membership in a particular social group. Petitioner asserts that he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal based on his membership in the social group of “Guatemalan young men who attended the University of Mariano Galvez and [are] perceived to be wealthy.” Considering this issue de novo, Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 890 (9th Cir. 2021), we find that Petitioner has failed to show that his proposed social group is defined with particularity and is socially distinct within Guatemala. Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (requiring that a particular social group be “defined with particularity” and “socially distinct within the society in 2 Case: 21-43, 04/17/2023, DktEntry: 26.1, Page 3 of 4 question”). Our conclusion is supported by precedents rejecting proposed particular social groups based on perceived wealth. See, e.g., Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053, 1060 (9th Cir. 2019); Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1228–29 (9th Cir. 2016). Additionally, Petitioner has not produced sufficient evidence that would show that his proposed social group is perceived as …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals