NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 5 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSE ANTONIO PINEDA CASASOLA, No. 19-72339 Petitioner, Agency No. A098-458-517 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 17, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: BYBEE and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and BATAILLON, *** Senior District Judge. Petitioner Jose Pineda Casasola, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks * 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 Joseph F. Bataillon, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation. review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of petitioner’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. In August 2001, at age fifteen, petitioner entered the United States unlawfully as an unaccompanied child. In 2007, the government initiated removal proceedings against him. And in 2013, the Immigration Court administratively closed those proceedings at the government’s request. Petitioner remained in the United States, paid taxes, and raised his two United States citizen children. But in January 2014, petitioner was convicted of felony leaving the scene of an accident and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. See Cal. Veh. Code § 20001(a). The removal proceedings against him were then re-calendared. Thereafter, petitioner filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) protection. He claimed that he feared returning to Guatemala because his two cousins sexually abused him from about ages seven to ten. Petitioner argued that he was persecuted in Guatemala on account of membership in two “particular social groups”: (1) child victims of domestic violence; and (2) family. In January 2016, as relevant here, the IJ determined that petitioner could not establish the requisite nexus between the claimed persecution and a protected ground. She found that the proposed particular social group of “child victims of 2 19-72339 domestic violence” was not legally cognizable, determining that the group is not socially distinct and is too large. She also found that any targeting of petitioner was not due to membership in his “family” but was instead because of opportunity and convenience due to his proximity, youth, and fear.1 The BIA dismissed petitioner’s appeal, determining in relevant part that the hit and run conviction was a particularly serious crime, thus rendering petitioner ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. Petitioner sought review by this Court, which granted the petition and remanded to the agency for reconsideration of the particularly serious crime determination. On remand, the BIA again dismissed the appeal. It determined that it need not decide the particularly serious crime issue because petitioner had failed to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals