NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 9 2021 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS SHERIDA ARACELY CARRILLO AGUILAR, No. 19-71635 AKA Luz Mariana Jimenez-Giron, Agency No. A201-147-597 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 31, 2020** Seattle, Washington Before: BYBEE and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and BASTIAN,*** District Judge. Sherida Aracely Carrillo Aguilar, a citizen and native of Guatemala, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the order of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her request for withholding of removal and ordering her removed to Guatemala. We have * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C). *** The Honorable Stanley Allen Bastian, Chief United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation. jurisdiction under § 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. To establish her eligibility for withholding of removal, Carrillo Aguilar had to show that, if removed to Guatemala, she would likely suffer persecution “because of [her] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A); see also id. § 1231(b)(3)(C). Before the agency, Carrillo Aguilar asserted that she had established that she would be persecuted on account of two such protected grounds, namely, “membership in a particular social group” and “political opinion.” The IJ rejected both such asserted grounds, and the BIA’s decision upheld those conclusions. In reviewing that decision, we review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Bringas- Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). A finding is supported by substantial evidence unless “‘any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary’ based on the evidence in the record.” Id. (simplified) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Carrillo Aguilar’s proposed social group of “young single Guatemalan women without significant family protection” was not sufficiently “socially distinct within the society in question” and therefore not cognizable. See Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 2 947 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). As she did before the BIA, Carrillo Aguilar relies heavily on her testimony concerning her own experiences, which makes clear that Carrillo Aguilar believed that her status as a young single woman with no significant family protection left her vulnerable to abuse from her persecutor (Marcos) and from others in the community. Carrillo Aguilar also notes that Marcos had harassed other single women in the area. But this evidence does not compel the conclusion that Guatemalan society recognizes young single women without significant family protection as a socially distinct …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals