NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 9 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANGEL FELIPE PEREZ-PEREZ, AKA No. 19-70938 Lopez, Agency No. A202-069-682 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 5, 2021** Phoenix, Arizona Before: HAWKINS and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE,*** District Judge. Petitioner Angel Felipe Perez-Perez, a Guatemalan native and citizen of * 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 Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation. indigenous Mayan descent, seeks review of an order entered by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review. “Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ decision and also adds its own reasoning, we review the decision of the BIA and those parts of the IJ’s decision upon which it relies.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1027–28 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2011)). We review legal questions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). Whether a particular social group is cognizable is a question of law, but whether that group is socially distinct is a question of fact. Id. at 1242. 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner was insufficiently likely to suffer persecution on account of his family membership to be entitled to withholding of removal. “[W]hen similarly situated members of the petitioner’s family live without incident in the alleged danger zone, such family evidence and the inferences drawn from it does substantially support the agency decision . . . .” Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks, modifications, and citation omitted), abrogated on other 2 grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). Here, it is undisputed that Petitioner’s parents have “remained unharmed” in his hometown. See id. And they are similarly situated because they helped file the police report that Petitioner merely encouraged, and they too received unfulfilled threats of violence. While the IJ erroneously assumed that Petitioner’s sister also remained in Guatemala, the BIA expressly declined to rely on that part of the IJ’s reasoning. See Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1027–28 (noting that we review only those parts of the IJ’s decision on which the BIA relied). And despite Petitioner’s suggestions otherwise, the BIA gave adequate attention to his individual …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals