Brenda Godinez-Velasquez v. Robert Wilkinson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 5, 2021
• Docket: 19-71783
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 5 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRENDA GODINEZ-VELASQUEZ, No. 19-71783 AKA Brenda Godinez De Ruiz, Agency No. A094-955-439 Petitioner,

v. MEMORANDUM*

ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 3, 2021** San Francisco, California

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and IKUTA and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Brenda Godinez-Velasquez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, seeks review

of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) that affirmed the

* 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). decision of the immigration judge (IJ) denying her application for withholding of

removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

Godinez-Velasquez does not challenge the IJ’s conclusion that her proposed

social group—“victims of sexual violence who do not have the protection of the

government”—lacks social distinction. Because an applicant for withholding of

removal seeking relief based on membership in a particular social group must

establish that the proposed group is socially distinct, see Cordoba v. Barr, 962 F.3d

479, 483 (9th Cir. 2020), the BIA did not err in upholding the IJ’s denial of

Godinez-Velasquez’s application for withholding of removal.

The BIA did not err in affirming the IJ’s conclusion that Godinez-Velasquez

was not entitled to relief under CAT. Given the IJ’s unchallenged finding that

Godinez-Velasquez could safely relocate in Guatemala, substantial evidence

supports the denial of withholding of removal under CAT, see 8 C.F.R.

§ 208.16(c)(3)(ii); Singh v. Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 435, 443 (9th Cir. 2003), and

deferral of removal under CAT, see 8 C.F.R § 1208.17(a). The BIA’s

determination that Godinez-Velasquez suffered past persecution does not affect

this conclusion, or our conclusion on statutory withholding of removal.

PETITION DENIED.