NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 26 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JASMIN IDALIA SOLARES GONZALEZ, No. 19-72319 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-007-060 v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 8, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: HURWITZ and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and CORKER,*** District Judge. * 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 Clifton L. Corker, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, sitting by designation. Jasmin Idalia Solares Gonzalez1 (“Solares”), a citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for withholding of removal. We previously remanded for the BIA to consider (1) whether Solares’ proposed social group is cognizable and (2) whether her social group was a “reason” for her persecution. Gonzalez-Solares v. Whitaker, 742 F. App’x 277, 278 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 360 (9th Cir. 2017)). On remand, the BIA determined that the proposed social group was “young, single women who are targeted for harm in Guatemala.” It found this group not cognizable and further found no nexus between this proposed social group and Solares’ claimed persecution. This Court has jurisdiction to review immigration proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review. 1. We review denials of withholding of removal for substantial evidence and will uphold the denial if it is supported by “reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). The substantial evidence 1 Although Petitioner’s name is spelled differently in Petitioner’s and Respondent’s brief, we will use the spelling of Petitioner’s name as it appears in the Guatemalan national register of persons, both decisions of the BIA, and our previous opinion on this matter, Gonzalez-Solares v. Whitaker, 742 F.App’x 277 (9th Cir. 2018). 2 standard is “highly deferential” and the petitioner must show that “the evidence not only supports . . . but compels reversal.” Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). The question of whether a proposed social group is cognizable is a matter of law which we review de novo. Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2020); Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2014). 2. In his initial opinion, the IJ defined the proposed social group as “young, single women who are targeted for harm in Guatemala.” Solares did not challenge this definition in her appeal to the BIA. On remand from this Court, the BIA limited its consideration ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals