NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 5 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANA GUZMAN-AJENEL, AKA Ana No. 18-73157 Elvira Guzman-Ajanel, Agency No. A088-762-777 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 1, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: GOULD, OWENS, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Ana Guzman-Ajenel (Guzman) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying her application for withholding of removal and request for * 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). protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review. “Whether a group constitutes a ‘particular social group’ ... is a question of law we review de novo.” Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 665 (9th Cir. 2010). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. Rayamajhi v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 1241, 1243 (9th Cir. 2019). Under this deferential standard, factual findings are treated as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Singh v. Lynch, 802 F.3d 972, 974 (9th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, in order to reverse the BIA’s finding under substantial evidence review, “we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion, but compels it.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992). 1. Guzman’s withholding of removal claim fails because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Guzman was unable to show she would be persecuted because of her membership in a particular social group (PSG). Specifically, Guzman contends that she will be persecuted as a member of two proposed PSGs: (1) “Guatemalan family members of a United States resident”; and (2) “Ms. Guzman’s father’s family members.” The BIA concluded that Guzman failed to show her first proffered PSG was socially distinct because the record did not “demonstrat[e] that Guatemalan society 2 perceives her proposed group as a [PSG].” Where, as here, “the record is devoid of any society specific evidence, ... which would establish that [Guzman’s first proposed PSG] [is] perceived or recognized as a group by society in Guatemala,” the record does not compel the conclusion that the BIA erred in determining that “Guatemalan family members of a United States resident” is not a cognizable PSG. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1243 (9th Cir. 2020). Regarding Guzman’s second proposed PSG—“Ms. Guzman’s father’s family members”—the BIA agreed with the IJ that Guzman failed to demonstrate “that her membership in the group was or will be ‘a reason’ for the harm.” See also Lkhagvasuren v. Lynch, 849 F.3d 800, 802 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The petitioner ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals