Delcy Cordova v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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