NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 APPEALS
2 

Irma Vicente Maldonado and her two children challenge the Board of 

Immigration Appeals’ (“the Board”) dismissal of her1appeal. We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Bringas-Rodriguez 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,” GarciaMilian 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 

Maldonado’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 immutable characteristic. She 

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

Guatemalan 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, 782 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005). 
3 

that documents the country’s considerable problems with domestic violence, 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 claims for asylum 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 female business 

owners as a distinctive group. 

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

Vicente Maldonado is ineligible for relief under the Convention Against Torture. 

The Board determined that Vicente Maldonado failed to produce 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 Vicente 

Maldonado credibly testified that she twice reported to the police that she had

received 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 before 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.