Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 19-1402 MONICA NOLASCO-YOK, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS Before Howard, Chief Judge, Lynch and Lipez, Circuit Judges. Daniel T. Welch, with whom Kevin MacMurray and MacMurray & Associates were on brief, for petitioner. Rachel Browning, with whom Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Jessica E. Sherman, Senior Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, and Juria L. Jones, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, were on brief, for respondent. February 26, 2020 LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Monica Nolasco-Yok petitions for review of a ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") declining to reconsider its decision affirming denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Our review is governed by the "extremely deferential" abuse-of-discretion standard, under which we must uphold the BIA's decision unless it is "arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law." See Liu v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 37, 40 (1st Cir. 2009) (quoting Abdullah v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 92, 99 (1st Cir. 2006)). Finding none of those attributes in the BIA's decision, we deny the petition for review. We recount the facts relevant to our disposition. Nolasco-Yok is a native and citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States without inspection or admission in 2014. After the Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against her, Nolasco-Yok filed an application for relief from removal. Her application asserted that she had been persecuted by gang members in Guatemala on the basis of her membership in her nuclear family, a protected social group.1 She submitted a sworn 1Nolasco-Yok argues extensively in her petition that Matter of L-E-A-, 27 I. & N. Dec. 581 (A.G. 2019), a recent decision that arguably calls into question the cognizability of certain family- based asylum claims, is not binding on this court. This argument is irrelevant because neither the BIA nor the IJ relied on Matter of L-E-A-, and both assumed that family constitutes a particular social group under the Immigration & Nationality Act. The government has also disclaimed any reliance on Matter of L-E-A-. - 2 - declaration stating that the gang threatened her as retaliation for her sister's refusal to join the gang, even after her sister was raped and threatened by members of the gang. However, at her merits hearing, Nolasco-Yok told a different story: on four occasions, her attorney asked her why the gang members had threatened her, and all four times she stated that their threats were designed to recruit her to help them sell drugs. Nolasco-Yok did testify, consistent with her declaration, that her sister had been raped by gang members in Guatemala who sought to recruit her sister to the gang, but not once did she state that her family membership was the reason for her persecution. No witnesses other than ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals