Juan Ayala-Godoy v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 29 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN AYALA-GODOY, AKA Juan No. 18-70367
Manuel Ayala Godoy, AKA Juan Manuel
Godoy, Agency No. A087-902-275
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 27, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: GOULD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,*** District Judge.
Petitioner Juan Ayala-Godoy (“Ayala-Godoy”), a citizen of Mexico,
*
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).
***
The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision
dismissing his appeal of the denial of his withholding of removal application. We
deny Ayala-Godoy’s petition.
1. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). “As a general rule, we
review the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal for substantial evidence.” Reyes
v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1137 (9th Cir. 2016). More specifically, “[f]actual
findings concerning entitlement to withholding are reviewed for substantial
evidence.” Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
Under the substantial evidence standard, the court “must uphold the agency
determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran-
Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019).
2. Ayala-Godoy has not provided any specific information that would
compel us, under the substantial evidence standard, to conclude that Ayala-Godoy
was a member of his proposed particular social group (“PSG”) defined before the
immigration judge: repatriated Mexican male adult citizens who oppose gang
authority. Under our precedent in Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077, 1084-85
(9th Cir. 2014), an individual that takes concrete steps to oppose gang authority
may be recognized to be a member of a cognizable PSG. But, unlike in Pirir-Boc,
Ayala-Godoy has not testified to any concrete steps he had taken to oppose gang
authority, nor has Ayala-Godoy identified any specific threats made against him or
2
his family. Without such evidence, we do not find the evidence contained in the
record compels a different result from the BIA.
PETITION DENIED.
3