Rosa Jeronimo-Matias v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 14 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROSA JERONIMO-MATIAS; et al., No. 17-71716
18-70289
Petitioners,
Agency Nos. A202-122-392
v. A202-122-393
A202-122-394
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, A202-122-395
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 12, 2020**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and GWIN,*** District
Judge.
Petitioner Rosa Jeronimo-Matias seeks review of a decision by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial 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).
***
The Honorable James S. Gwin, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recount them here.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and deny the petition.
“We review the BIA’s denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
relief for substantial evidence.” Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031
(9th Cir. 2014). A finding by the IJ is supported by substantial evidence unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary based on
the evidence in the record. See Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051,
1059 (9th Cir. 2017). To the extent the BIA incorporates the IJ’s decision as its
own, the panel reviews “both opinions.” Kalubi v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1134, 1137
n.3 (9th Cir. 2004).
1. We affirm the BIA’s determination that Petitioner failed to establish
membership in a particular social group consisting of “women unable to leave a
relationship.” Petitioner testified that she was able to leave her abuser and has not
heard from him. In light of this testimony, and the record evidence as a whole, a
reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to conclude that Petitioner was
“unable to leave” her relationship under Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 388,
393 (BIA 2014).” While Petitioner argues on appeal that she is also a member of
other particular social groups, we lack jurisdiction to consider new particular social
groups for the first time. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
2
678 (9th Cir. 2004).
2. We also affirm the BIA’s denial of Petitioner’s motion to reopen.
Denials of motions to reopen and remand are reviewed for abuse of discretion and
will not be reversed unless “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.” Agonafer v.
Sessions, 859 F.3d 1198, 1203 (9th Cir. 2017). The BIA determined Petitioner’s
assertions that her abuser had began searching for her in 2016 would not have
changed the outcome in the case because these newly asserted facts had no bearing
on her ability to leave in 2014. That determination was not arbitrary, irrational, or
contrary to law, and the BIA did not abuse its discretion.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3