ARNOLDO HERNANDEZ-RODRIGUEZ V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 15-70711 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 28 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARNOLDO RAFEAL HERNANDEZRODRIGUEZ, AKA Arnoldo HernandezRodriguez, No. 15-70711 Agency No. A095-807-155 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 7, 2019** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Arnoldo Rafeal Hernandez-Rodriguez (“Hernandez-Rodriguez”), a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision * 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). denying his application for withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition. Whether a group constitutes a “particular social group” is a question of law that we review de novo, Perdomo v. Holder, 611 F.3d 662, 665 (9th Cir. 2010), but we defer to the BIA’s interpretation of governing statutes and regulations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016). The BIA did not err in concluding there was no due process violation. Hernandez-Rodriguez has not demonstrated that the proceedings before the IJ were fundamentally unfair nor has he established that he suffered prejudiced. Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (must show fundamental unfairness affecting the outcome of the proceeding). The BIA did not err in finding that Hernandez-Rodriguez has not established membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining cognizability standard) (citing Matter of M-E-GV-, 26 I & N Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014)). Hernandez-Rodriguez has not established that Guatemalans who resist gang recruitment would be perceived by 2 society or criminal gangs as a particular social group. See Santos-Barrios v. Holder, 582 F.3d 849, 854-55 (9th Cir. 2009) (men in Guatemala resisting gang violence is not a particular social group), abrogated in part by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013). Hernandez-Rodriguez also has not established that Guatemalans who have resided for many years in the United States would be perceived by society or criminal gangs as a particular social group. See Reyes, 842 F.3d at 1131 (explaining cognizability standard) (citing Matter of M-E-G-V-, 26 I&N Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014)). Thus, Hernandez-Rodriguez’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief. The record does not compel the conclusion that Hernandez-Rodriguez is “more likely than not” to be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if he returns to Guatemala. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); see also Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). Thus, Hernandez-Rodriguez’s CAT claim also fails. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
