Juan Ayala-Godoy v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 29, 2023
• Docket: 18-70367
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 29 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JUAN AYALA-GODOY, AKA Juan No. 18-70367 Manuel Ayala Godoy, AKA Juan Manuel Godoy, Agency No. A087-902-275

Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted March 27, 2023** San Francisco, California

Before: GOULD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,*** District Judge.

Petitioner Juan Ayala-Godoy (“Ayala-Godoy”), a citizen of Mexico,

* 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). *** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision

dismissing his appeal of the denial of his withholding of removal application. We

deny Ayala-Godoy’s petition.

1. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). “As a general rule, we

review the BIA’s denial of withholding of removal for substantial evidence.” Reyes

v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1137 (9th Cir. 2016). More specifically, “[f]actual

findings concerning entitlement to withholding are reviewed for substantial

evidence.” Pagayon v. Holder, 675 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

Under the substantial evidence standard, the court “must uphold the agency

determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran-

Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019).

2. Ayala-Godoy has not provided any specific information that would

compel us, under the substantial evidence standard, to conclude that Ayala-Godoy

was a member of his proposed particular social group (“PSG”) defined before the

immigration judge: repatriated Mexican male adult citizens who oppose gang

authority. Under our precedent in Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077, 1084-85

(9th Cir. 2014), an individual that takes concrete steps to oppose gang authority

may be recognized to be a member of a cognizable PSG. But, unlike in Pirir-Boc,

Ayala-Godoy has not testified to any concrete steps he had taken to oppose gang

authority, nor has Ayala-Godoy identified any specific threats made against him or

2 his family. Without such evidence, we do not find the evidence contained in the

record compels a different result from the BIA.

PETITION DENIED.