URIEL MALDONADO-BARRIOS V. WILLIAM BARR, No. 17-73196 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED FEB 21 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT URIEL YUVINI MALDONADOBARRIOS, AKA Tereso Hernandez Chable, AKA Uriel Yuvini Maldonado, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 17-73196 Agency No. A205-314-981 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 19, 2019** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Uriel Yuvini Maldonado-Barrios, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his * 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). application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Cerezo v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the 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. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. The BIA did not err in finding that Maldonado-Barrios did not establish membership in a cognizable social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question.’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). In light of this conclusion, we need not reach Maldonado-Barrios’s contentions as to nexus. Thus, Maldonado-Barrios’s withholding of removal claim fails. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 2 17-73196 Maldonado-Barrios failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the Guatemalan government. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2014). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 17-73196

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.