Evelyn Dominguez-Perez v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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