GUEVARA DE RODRIGUEZ V. GARLAND, No. 22-1751 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 21 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROXANA PATRICIA GUEVARA DE RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-1751 Agency No. A099-523-226 MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 14, 2023** Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Roxana Patricia Guevara de Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her * 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). applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, including determinations regarding social distinction. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo questions of law, including whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Id. We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not err in concluding that Guevara de Rodriguez’s two proposed particular social groups based on opposition to gangs are not cognizable. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (to demonstrate membership in a particular group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))); see also Conde Quevedo, 947 F.3d at 1243 (proposed social group lacked social distinction because the record failed to establish its members are perceived or recognized as a group by the society in question). Thus, Guevara de Rodriguez failed to establish she was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground, see Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1143 (9th Cir. 2021) (“The 2 22-1751 applicant must demonstrate a nexus between her past or feared harm and a protected ground.” (citation omitted)), and her asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 22-1751
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
