Court Opinion

ID: 6316904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-23 21:00:43.015121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:32.570868
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 23 2022
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EVELYN MILEIDY DOMINGUEZ-                       No.    16-71189
PEREZ,
                                                Agency No. A206-680-472
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted February 15, 2022**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

      Evelyn Mileidy Dominguez-Perez, a native and citizen of Guatemala,

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and 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. We

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v.

Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo the legal question

of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that

deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and

regulations. Id. at 1241-42. We deny the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Dominguez-

Perez failed to establish she suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution.

See Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (persecution is an “extreme

concept” that includes the “infliction of suffering or harm”). The agency did not

err in concluding that Dominguez-Perez did not establish membership in a

cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th

Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular social group, “[t]he

applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a

common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially

distinct within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N.

Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). Thus, Dominguez-Perez’s asylum and withholding of

removal claims fail.

      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

Dominguez-Perez failed to show it is more likely than not she would be tortured by

                                           2                                    16-71189
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Guatemala.

See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

      We reject petitioner’s challenge to the BIA’s use of streamlining procedures,

because the BIA’s final order was not a streamlined decision.

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the

mandate.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                        3                                    16-71189