NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSE ANTONIO PINEDA CASA S OLA ,

Petitioner ,

v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND , Attorney General, Respondent

. No. 19

- 72339 Agency No

. A098

- 458

- 517

MEMORANDUM *

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, seek s

* 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 H onorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Senior United States District J udge for the District of Nebraska, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JAN 5 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 72339

review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA
affirmed the I mmigration J udge’s (“IJ”) denial of petitioner’s application s 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, p etitioner entered the United States unlawfully

as an unaccompanied child

. I n 2007 , the government initiated removal proceedings against him

. And i n 2013, the Immigration Court administratively closed th ose proceedings at the government’s request. P etitioner remained in the United States, paid taxes , and raised his two United States citizen children. But i n January 2014, petitioner was convicted of felony leaving the scene of an accident and sentenced to

t wo 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 C onvention A gainst T orture (“CAT”) protection. He
claimed that he f

eared returning to Guatemala because his two cousins sexually
abused him from about age s seven to ten

. P etitioner argued that he was persecuted
in Guatemala on account of membership in two “particular social group s ” : (1) child
victims of domestic violence ; and (2) family.
In January 2016, as relevant here , t he IJ determined that petitioner could not establish the requisite nexus between the claimed persecution and a protected

g round . She found that the proposed particular social group of “child victims of3 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 instea d 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 render ing 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 dismi ssed the appeal. It determined that it need not decide the particularly serious crime issue because petitioner had fail ed to show that he would be persecuted on account of a protected ground , which also rendered him ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal. The BIA found that “child
victims of domestic violence” is not cognizable as a particular social group because that category lacks the requisite particularly and social distinction. And even assuming that “family” is cognizable, the BIA found no clear error in the IJ’s finding

1 The IJ also found that petitioner was in eligible for CAT protection because he failed to show he would be tortured in Guatemala or th at the torture would be committed by the government or with its acquiescence

. P etitioner did not appeal this finding to the BIA.4 19

- 72339

that any abuse petitioner suffered had no nexus to his familial membership but was
inst ead motivated by proximity and opportunity. “We review denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence and will uphold a denial supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a w hole.” Ling Huang v. Holder , 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014) ( citation and internal quotation marks omitted ). The agency ’ s “findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Thus, before granting a petition for review , “we must determine that the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion but compels it

— and also compels the further conclusion that the petitioner meets the requisite standard for o btaining relief.” Huang , 744 F.3d at 1152 ( cleaned up ). “W hen the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law rather than adopting the IJ ’ s decision,” we review only the
BIA ’ s decision “except to the extent that the IJ ’ s opinion is expressly adop ted. ”
Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 201 0 ) ( citation omitted ).
E ligibility for both asylum and withholding of removal requires a nexus between persecution or feared persecution and “ one of five protected statutory grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. ” Riera

- Riera v. Lynch , 841 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2016). Any proposed particular social group must be: (1) composed of members who share an5 19

- 72339

immutab le characteristic (something they cannot change or so fundamental that they should not be required to change ) ; (2) defined with particular ity ( there is a commonly accepted definition of the group ) ; and (3) social ly distinct within the society in question (generally perceived by that society to be a group)

. Macedo Templos v.
Wilkinson , 987 F.3d 877, 882 (9th Cir. 2021)

. Whether a proposed “ particular social group” meets these requirements is a legal determination that this Court reviews de

novo. Pirir

- B oc v. Holder , 750 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2014)

. As the agency determined, p etitioner was not persecuted on account of his membership in a particular social group. The proposed particular social group of
“child victims of domestic violence” is not cognizable

. T he record does not compel
a conclusion that Guatemala n society recogn izes this group as socially distinct

. See Conde Quevedo v. Barr , 947 F.3d 1238, 1243 (9th Cir. 2020)

. Nor does the record compel a conclusion that there was nexus between the harm suffered and petitioner’s membership in his family

— that such familial membership was “one central reason”
for the abuse

. Santos

- Ponce v. Wilkinson , 987 F.3d 886, 890 (9th Cir. 2021)

. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
.