Yesli Perez-Godoy v. William Barr ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                       FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       JUN 23 2020
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    YESLI MARILI PEREZ-GODOY,                      No.   18-70140
    Petitioner,                     Agency No. A206-101-606
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted June 19, 2020**
    Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    Yesli Marili Perez-Godoy, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review of
    the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from the
    immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of
    *
    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).
    removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
    jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    , and we deny the petition.
    Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner’s
    proposed social group of “unprotected single females whose life [sic] was [sic]
    threatened by groups of males who band together in gangs and threaten women
    because of Guatemala’s attitude about women and gender roles” is not cognizable
    on this record. See Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 
    947 F.3d 1238
    , 1243 (9th Cir. 2020).
    Petitioner’s submitted evidence does not support the necessary finding that her
    proposed group is “defined with particularity” and “socially distinct within the
    society in question.” 
    Id. at 1242
     (citation omitted). Therefore, the BIA did not err
    in concluding that Petitioner is ineligible for asylum and withholding of removal.
    The BIA also did not err in denying Petitioner’s claim for protection under
    CAT. The record does not demonstrate it is “more likely than not” she would be
    tortured if removed. Shrestha v. Holder, 
    590 F.3d 1034
    , 1048–49 (9th Cir. 2010)
    (citation omitted).
    PETITION DENIED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-70140

Filed Date: 6/23/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/23/2020