Daniel Flores-Guerrero v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2018 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 21 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL SANTIAGO FLORES- No. 15-72015
GUERRERO,
Agency No. A094-769-460
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted March 7, 2018
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Daniel Flores-Guerrero, a native and citizen of El Salvador, seeks
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") dismissal of his appeal from
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
an immigration judge’s ("IJ") denial of his applications for asylum and withholding
of removal.1 We deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner
failed to establish that the proposed social group, articulated variously as
"individuals who have fled violence" or "witnesses to criminal activity [who] have
cooperated with law enforcement or are perceived to have cooperated," meets the
"social distinction" requirement. Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1137 (9th Cir.
2016) (stating substantial evidence standard), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 736 (2018).
As the BIA noted, Petitioner has presented no evidence that Salvadoran society
recognizes that broad group of people as a social group. And it is not otherwise
apparent that the group would "generally be recognizable by other members of the
community." Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1088 (9th Cir. 2013) (en
banc) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Similarly, the BIA did not err in determining that Petitioner’s proposed
social group is insufficiently particular. See Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077,
1081 (9th Cir. 2014) (stating de novo standard of review). Because cooperation
with law enforcement is a vague and amorphous concept that may apply to a broad
1
Petitioner did not specifically contest the IJ’s denial of his claim for
protection under the Convention Against Torture, so he has waived it. Jones v.
Wood, 207 F.3d 557, 562 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000).
2
group of people, Petitioner’s proposed group, as articulated, does not constitute a
particular social group. Reyes, 842 F.3d at 1135.
That is not to say that had Petitioner defined his social group more narrowly
he would have been unable to establish membership in a particular social group.
But, as presented, Petitioner’s proposed social group is too broad and vague to be
socially distinct or particular.
2. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that, even if
Petitioner had established membership in a particular social group, he failed to
establish a nexus between that membership and his fear of persecution.
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 742 (9th Cir. 2009). The record does not
compel a finding that Petitioner’s proposed particular social group is "one central
reason" for his fear of persecution because, as the BIA noted, his "fear of harm
arises, in large part, from his resistance to recruitment in gang membership." 8
U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854–56 (9th Cir.
2009).
Petition DENIED.
3