Marvin Roel RODRIGUEZ AROCHE, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Decided: September 16, 2020
Before: IKUTA and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and WOODLOCK,** District Judge.
Julie A. Shepard, Sarah Norman, Jenner & Block LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner Joseph D. Hardy, Trial Attorney, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
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).
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).
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
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.