Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Luz Maria GUZMAN-SORIA; et al., Petitioners, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM **
Luz Maria Guzman-Soria and her children Vanessa Soto-Guzman and Angel Soto-Guzman petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
The petitioners have not demonstrated that Mexican society recognizes those who say something useful to police in apprehending suspects as a distinct “particular social group.” We assume for purposes of this decision only that the “particular social group” of informants in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1092 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), encompasses the petitioners’ proposed social group, if there is evidence of the distinctiveness of those groups in the country at issue. Even assuming that Henriquez-Rivas extends to those who do not testify in court, the administrative record, including the news clippings to which the petitioners direct our attention, does not compel a conclusion contrary to the BIA’s. Substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the BIA’s finding that the petitioners failed to establish that Mexican society recognizes their proffered particular social group and thus supports the denials of asylum and withholding of removal. See also Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 1029 n.2 (9th Cir. 2011) (“An application for asylum is automatically considered a simultaneous request for withholding of removal.” (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1208.3(b) ) ); cf. Henriquez-Rivas, 707 F.3d at 1092 (explaining that the BIA had failed to consider “significant evidence” of the recognition in Salvadoran society of the particular social group at issue such as the enactment of a “special witness protection law”).
Petitioners have not argued in their brief to this court that they are entitled to Convention relief, so those claims which were made before the BIA, are waived. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996).
PETITION DENIED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 16-70701
Decided: June 20, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)