Court Opinion

ID: 9378804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-13 17:01:25.706549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:01.893097
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 13 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DELCY KARINA CORDOVA,                           No.    18-73220

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A208-157-182

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                              Submitted March 13, 2023**
                               San Francisco, California

Before: FRIEDLAND, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Delcy Karina Cordova, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions pro se for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily

affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her application for

asylum and withholding of removal, and request for relief under the Convention

      *
             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).
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where, as

here, the BIA summarily affirms the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision as

the final agency determination. Renteria-Morales v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1076,

1081 (9th Cir. 2008). “In order to reverse the [agency], 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

obtaining relief.” Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014)

(alteration in original) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1

(1992)). We deny the petition.

      1. Construed liberally, Cordova’s pro se brief does not challenge the IJ’s

dispositive determination that her proposed particular social group is not defined

with sufficient particularity. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079–

80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening

brief are waived). Even if this issue were not forfeited, the record does not compel

the conclusion that the IJ erred in determining that the proposed particular social

group is not cognizable. A cognizable social group must be “(1) composed of

members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with

particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.” Diaz-

Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1077 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Matter of M-E-V-

G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014)). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s

                                           2
conclusion that the proposed social group is not defined with sufficient

particularity. See Nguyen v. Barr, 983 F.3d 1099, 1102–03 (9th Cir. 2020)

(explaining the particularity requirement). Because Cordova’s failure to establish a

cognizable social group is dispositive as to her asylum and withholding of removal

claims, we need not reach her other arguments. See id. at 1104.

      2. The IJ denied CAT relief because Cordova failed to show it is more

likely than not she will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the

government if returned to Honduras. See Garcia-Milian, 755 F.3d at 1034–35.

The record does not compel a contrary conclusion. Cordova’s “own personal

speculation that [s]he would face such acquiescence” of the police does not compel

a reversal of the agency. See Rodriguez-Jimenez v. Garland, 20 F.4th 434, 440

(9th Cir. 2021).

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

The motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                          3