United States v. 2020-04-14 | 17-71967 | DANIA MALDONADO-ANDRADE V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIA MALDONADO-ANDRADE,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 17-71967

Agency No. A098-115-483

MEMORANDUM
*

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

Submitted February 3, 2020
**

Pasadena, California

Before: WARDLAW, NGUYEN, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.

Dania Maldonado-Andrade (Maldonado) petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) orders dismissing her appeal from the Immigration
Judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for withholding of removal and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8

*
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).
FILED

APR 14 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2
U.S.C. § 1252. We grant in part and deny in part the petition for review.
1. To be entitled to withholding of removal, Maldonado must “demonstrate
a clear probability of [future] persecution . . . on account of a statutorily protected
ground.” Fedunyak v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2007); see also 8
U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A).
“When an applicant is deemed credible, we . . . consider[] nexus issues to be
questions of law entitled to de novo review.” Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d
1018, 1022 n.4 (9th Cir. 2010). Even assuming Maldonado could establish
membership in a social group under Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 388 (BIA
2014), or that her proposed group of “women in an abusive relationship in
Honduras who cannot leave that abusive relationship because of the way the
culture and government in Honduras treat domestic violence victims and because
her abuser is a powerful cartel member with ties to corrupt Honduran government
officials” was cognizable, the BIA correctly concluded that she failed to
demonstrate a nexus between her fear of future persecution and her membership in
these putative groups. Though Maldonado suffered severe sexual violence, there
is no evidence in the record to suggest that this sexual violence was perpetrated
against her on account of her abusive relationship with a cartel member with ties to
corrupt Honduran government officials. See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d
351, 357 (9th Cir. 2017) (“The words ‘on account of’ and ‘because of’ address the

3
persecutor’s motive for persecuting the victim.”).
Nor can Maldonado establish eligibility for withholding of removal on
account of her membership in the social group of “persons persecuted by gang
members or persons fearing harm from gang members in Honduras.” Under our
prior precedent, this social group is not cognizable. See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey,
542 F.3d 738, 745–46 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that “young men in El Salvador
resisting gang violence” is not a cognizable social group), abrogated on other
grounds by Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1093 (9th Cir. 2013) (en
banc). For these reasons, we deny the petition for review on Maldonado’s
withholding of removal claim.
2. “CAT’s implementing regulations explicitly require the agency to
consider all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture,” which “includes
the petitioner’s testimony and country conditions evidence.” Parada v. Sessions,
902 F.3d 901, 914–15 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). However, neither the IJ nor the BIA addressed Maldonado’s country
conditions evidence when evaluating her CAT claim. “The failure of the IJ and
BIA to consider evidence of country conditions constitutes reversible error.”
Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 705 (9th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we
grant the petition in part and remand for the BIA to reconsider Maldonado’s claim
for CAT relief.

4
PETITION GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART, REMANDED.