Marvin Rodriguez Aroche v. William Barr ( 2020 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
SEP 16 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARVIN ROEL RODRIGUEZ No. 18-71135
AROCHE,
Agency No. A205-060-050
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 2, 2020**
Pasadena, California
Before: IKUTA and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and WOODLOCK,*** District
Judge.
*
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 Douglas P. Woodlock, United States District Judge for
the District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
Marvin Roel Rodriguez Aroche (Petitioner) petitions for review of the
March 23, 2018 Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition.
With respect to asylum and withholding of removal, the record does not
compel the conclusion that Petitioner successfully demonstrated that he had a well
founded fear of persecution on the basis of his asserted membership in three
separate social groups. Those groups, as defined by him, have amorphous and
diffuse characteristics. The groups were defined as (a) individuals associated with
the transportation industry, cf. Cordoba v. Barr, 962 F.3d 479, 483 (9th Cir. 2020)
(wealthy landowners in Columbia not shown to be cognizable particular social
group), and Petitioner’s own association with those individuals, while family
related, was attenuated; (b) returned migrants, cf. Garay Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d
1125, 1138–40 (9th Cir. 2016) (deportees from the United States to El Salvador not
cognizable particular social group); Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226,
1228–29 (9th Cir. 2016) (imputed wealthy Americans removed to Mexico not
cognizable particular social group); (c) individuals who have defied criminal
gangs, see Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1091–94 (9th Cir. 2013) (en
banc) (characterizing cases involving only generalized opposition to gang activity
as providing insufficient basis to identify a cognizable particular social group).
2
With respect to the Convention Against Torture, the record does not compel
the conclusion that Petitioner successfully demonstrated that he would more likely
than not be subject to torture, as defined by the Convention, with the acquiescence
of persons acting in an official capacity. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d
829, 836–37 (9th Cir. 2016).
PETITION DENIED.
3