FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CARLOS ARNOLDO CONDE No. 18-70078 QUEVEDO; AMALIA CONDE TURCIOS, Petitioners, Agency Nos. A089-853-122 v. A089-853-120 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, OPINION Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted December 9, 2019 Seattle, Washington Filed January 24, 2020 Before: Susan P. Graber, Marsha S. Berzon, and Stephen A. Higginson,* Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Graber * The Honorable Stephen A. Higginson, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation. 2 CONDE QUEVEDO V. BARR SUMMARY** Immigration The panel dismissed in part and denied in part a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of withholding of removal to a citizen of Guatemala, holding that this court lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s renewed arguments concerning Convention Against Torture relief because that issue exceeded the scope of this court’s prior remand, and that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that the record did not establish that Guatemalan society recognizes people who report the criminal activity of gangs to police as a distinct social group for purposes of withholding relief. The panel explained that the Board properly concluded that it could not consider petitioner’s CAT claim on remand, where this court expressly disposed of that issue in the prior petition for review, and remanded only for further consideration of petitioner’s withholding claim. The panel held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that petitioner’s proposed social group of Guatemalans who report criminal activity of gangs to police was not cognizable due to the lack of society-specific evidence of social distinction. The panel explained that although country reports in evidence detailed the serious problem of gang violence in Guatemala, none of those documents discussed reporting gang violence to police, or ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. CONDE QUEVEDO V. BARR 3 any risks or barriers associated with doing so, nor did any of those documents assert that Guatemalan society recognizes those who, without more, report gang violence as a distinct group. Similarly, the panel concluded that petitioner’s testimony failed to support a finding of social recognition, where petitioner testified that, as far as he knew, only his family and friends—not the community in general—knew that he had filed a report with the police. The panel concluded that petitioner’s proposed social group differed from the group recognized in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), people who testified publicly against gang members in criminal proceedings, because Henriquez-Rivas had testified in open court, and the Salvadoran government had enacted a special witness protection law to protect those who testify against violent criminals. In contrast, although petitioner reported his gang attack to the police, there was no evidence that he ever testified against gang members, nor was there evidence that Guatemalans who ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals