Court Opinion

ID: 9367420
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-31 19:00:40.513306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:00.171341
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 31 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAFAEL ANTONIO GUERRERO                         No.    20-71629
RODRIGUEZ,
                                                Agency No. A202-076-066
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                      Argued and Submitted January 24, 2023
                            San Francisco, California

Before: GOULD, RAWLINSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Rafael Antonio Guerrero Rodriguez (“Guerrero Rodriguez” or “Petitioner”)

is a native and citizen of El Salvador. When he entered the United States, he did

not possess or present any valid immigrant visa or reentry permit, and he was not

admitted or paroled after inspection by an immigration officer. He was served a

Notice to Appear (“NTA”) in September 2014. In November 2016, Guerrero

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Rodriguez admitted to the factual allegations and conceded the charge of

removability in the NTA. He requested relief in the forms of asylum, withholding

of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The

Immigration Judge (“IJ”) heard Guerrero Rodriguez’s case on July 12, 2018 and

denied his application for relief. Guerrero Rodriguez appealed to the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed the IJ’s decision without an

opinion. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny in part and dismiss

in part the petition for review.

      In cases where the BIA affirms the IJ’s decision without an opinion, the IJ’s

decision becomes the BIA’s decision, and we evaluate the IJ’s decision as we

would that of the Board. Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 925 (9th Cir. 2004).

“Whether a group constitutes a particular social group is a question of law,” which

we review de novo. Cordoba v. Barr, 962 F.3d 479, 482 (9th Cir. 2020) (internal

quotations omitted) (quoting Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir.

2014)). The applicant has the burden to demonstrate the existence of a cognizable

particular social group (“PSG”), their membership in that PSG, and a risk of

persecution on account of their membership in the specified PSG. See Henriquez-

Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc).

      1. We lack jurisdiction to consider Guerrero Rodriguez’s contention that the

IJ “mischaracterized” his proposed social group because he failed to raise this issue

                                         2
before the BIA. We accordingly dismiss the petition with respect to this issue. See

8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 2004).

      2. Petitioner’s proposed social group comprised of “Salvadoran youth

targeted for gang recruitment” is not cognizable. The Board has previously

interpreted the phrase “particular social group” to refer to a group that is “(1)

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

with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.” See

Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (B.I.A. 2014).

      Here, the IJ properly found that Guerrero Rodriguez’s proposed social group

lacked both sufficient particularity and social distinction. Guerrero Rodriguez’s

proposed social group is too “loosely defined” to meet the particularity

requirement because, as Guerrero Rodriguez admitted, the gangs are everywhere

and could target anyone. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745 (9th

Cir. 2008) (abrogated on other grounds by Henriquez-Rivas, 707 F.3d 1081). As

to social distinction, the IJ was correct that “it is hard to see … where the

boundaries are” for Guerrero Rodriguez’s PSG because society would not be able

to perceive who is broadly “young” and has, at some point, been targeted by gangs.

      3. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that Petitioner

did not establish that the Salvadoran government would likely acquiesce to any

torture. To qualify for relief under CAT, the torture must be “inflicted by … or

                                           3
with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an

official capacity.” Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting

8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1)) (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted).

Acquiescence does not require “actual knowledge or willful acceptance,” but rather

“awareness and willful blindness” is sufficient. Zheng, 332 F.3d at 1197 (internal

quotations omitted)). However, “a general ineffectiveness on the government’s

part to investigate and prevent crime will not suffice to show acquiescence.”

Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016). To meet their

burden, a petitioner must show that they are more likely than the general populace

to be victims of violence and crime. Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226,

1230 (9th Cir. 2016).

      Here, substantial evidence supports the determination that Guerrero

Rodriguez failed to establish acquiescence. Guerrero Rodriguez testified that he

was afraid to go to the police because he thought the gangs would kill his family,

but he did not testify that police ever explicitly declined to help him in the past.

Guerrero Rodriguez testified that he was “certain that the police would not protect

[him] because they also fear the gangs.” However, substantial evidence supports

the conclusion that Guerrero Rodriguez’s statements about the police did not show

more than a “general ineffectiveness on the government’s part.” See Andrade-

Garcia, 828 F.3d at 836. As to the documentation on the country conditions,

                                           4
substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that the documentation was not

enough to show “willful blindness” of government officials that would make

Guerrero Rodriguez more likely than another member of the general populace to

be a victim of violence or crime.

      PETITION DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

                                        5