Libni Juarez Lopez v. Jefferson Sessions , 699 F. App'x 742 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 30 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIBNI SUDISADAI JUAREZ LOPEZ, No. 14–71617
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-935-506
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 18, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: IKUTA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,*** District Judge.
Libni Sudisadai Juarez Lopez (“Juarez Lopez”) petitions for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order denying her motion to remand and
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 Donald W. Molloy, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
dismissing her appeal from the denial of her application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied Juarez Lopez’s motion
to remand. See Castillo–Perez v. I.N.S., 212 F.3d 518, 523 (9th Cir. 2000). While
Juarez Lopez complied with the first two Lozada1 requirements, she did not “either
show that a complaint against prior counsel was filed with the proper disciplinary
authorities or explain why no such complaint was filed.” Iturribarria v. I.N.S.,
321 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003). The record does not reveal “a clear and obvious
case of ineffective assistance” so as to excuse Juarez Lopez’s noncompliance,
Rodriguez–Lariz v. I.N.S., 282 F.3d 1218, 1227 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing
Castillo–Perez, 212 F.3d at 526), because it does not show that counsel’s alleged
ineffective assistance “may have affected the outcome of the proceedings,” Lin v.
Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 1014, 1024 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Castillo–Perez, 212 F.3d at
527 n.12).
Juarez Lopez has not shown that the documents she wished to present would
have demonstrated that the Guatemalan government was unwilling or unable to
control the source of her persecution. See Lolong v. Gonzalez, 484 F.3d 1173,
1
Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), aff’d, 857 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1988).
2
1178 (9th Cir. 2007). An unsuccessful government investigation does not
necessarily demonstrate that the government was unwilling or unable to control the
persecutor. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005).
Because Juarez Lopez failed to submit the documents to the BIA, she could not
show how the submission of these documents would affect her claim for asylum.
See Fisher v. I.N.S., 79 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 1996).
Nor has Juarez Lopez shown how the documents at issue demonstrate that
her proposed particular social group—women who are members of a family that
owns a business in Guatemala—is sufficiently particular and socially distinct. See
Matter of M-E-V-G-, Respondent, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014). No
evidence has been provided showing female members of a family owning a
business in Guatemala are “perceived as a group” by Guatemalan society or the
extortionists, Henriquez–Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1089 (9th Cir. 2013)
(citation omitted), and the group is overbroad, see Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N.
at 239.
PETITION DENIED
3