NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IRMA YOLANDA VICENTE MALDONADO; et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

MERRICK GARLAND , Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 72233

Agency Nos. A202

- 159

- 776

A202

- 159

- 777

A202

- 159

- 778

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 2, 2021 * *
Pasadena, California

Before: TALLMAN and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and CHRISTENSEN, ** * District Judge.

* 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 Dana L. Christensen, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAR 24 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Irma Vicente Maldonado and her two children challenge the Board of

Immigration Appeals ’ (“the Board”) dismissal of her 1 appeal. We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Bringas

- Rod riguez v.

Sessions , 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc), and will only reverse if

the evidence “ not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it

, ” Garcia

Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation, emphases, and

alteration omitted)

. We deny her petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that Vicente

Maldonado’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal fail because she did

not establish harm on account of her participation in a “cognizable particular social

group” or any other protected ground. The Board determined that Vicente

Maldo nado ’s purported social group

— “female business owners”

— lacked social

distinction and was not “perceived as a group by society.”

Vicente Maldonado argues that the Board overlooked that her particular

social group relies on gender, which she argues is an i mmutable characteristic. She

asserts that the 2016 Department of State, Guatemala Report makes clear that

Guatemala n society views women as socially distinct because it includes a section

1 Angela Abagail Xiquin Vicente and Carlos David Vicente Maldonado’s applications for asylum are derivative of their mother’s because they are both under the age of 21. Ali v. Ashcroft , 394 F.3d 780, 7 82 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005 ).3

that documents the country’s considerable problems with domestic vi olence, rape,

sexual harassment, and economic inequality.

We decline to decide whether, in Guatemala, gender persecution alone

establishes grounds for asylum. 2 Vicente Maldonado’s purported social group of

female business owners ties her claim s for asy lum and withholding of removal to a

smaller subclass of women

— women who own their own businesses. Yet Vicente

Maldonado points to no immutable characteristic unique to this subclass nor does

the record support her theory that Guatemalan society views fema le business

owners as a distinct ive group.

2. The record does not compel reversal of t he Board ’s conclusion that

Vicente Maldonado is in eligible for relief under the Convention Against Torture

.

The Board determined that Vicente Maldonado failed to prod uce evidence to show

the “ mistreatment she fears from gangs constitutes torture by or at the instigation

of or with the consent and/or acquiescence (including the concept of willful

blindness) of a public official” or the Guatemalan government. Although V icente

Maldonado credibly testified that she twice report ed to the police that she had

receiv ed gang threats before the police took any action, we will not overturn the

2 To the extent Vicente Maldonado now asserts a particular social group based on gender discrimination or her perceived vulnerability as a single mother, these arguments were not brought bef ore the Immigration Judge or the Board and are not
considered. See Barron v. Ashcroft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004)

.4

Board’s decision where the record also indicates that the police planned to

investigate these threats after Vicente Maldonado’s third attempt to solicit their

involvement

.

Vicente Maldonado’s petition is therefore DENIED.