Maria Santay-Poroj; Delmy Mariel Santay v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA SANTAY-POROJ; DELMY
MARIEL SANTAY,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-70762
Agency Nos. A208-278-058
A208-278-057
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 9, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: W. FLETCHER, WATFORD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Maria Santay-Poroj and Delmy Mariel Santay, citizens of Guatemala, petition
for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing
their appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Santay’s
* 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 13 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
application, as lead petitioner, for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition.1
1. The agency’s findings that Santay did not carry her burden of
demonstrating eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal were supported by
substantial evidence.
a. Santay claimed to be a member of a particular social group of “Guatemalan
women who are unable to leave their domestic partnership.” But, substantial
evidence supports the agency’s finding that “nothing in the record demonstrates
societal recognition of unmarried women unable to leave their domestic
relationship.” Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Santay is
not a member of that group. Santay’s abusive partner left Guatemala in 2003, and
she had no contact with him until 2015 (at which time he did not try to force her
back into a relationship).
b. Santay also claimed to be a member of a particular social group of
1 The BIA appeared to adopt all reasons given by the IJ in her decision, expanding
on a few. Santay’s opening brief, however, addresses only the reasons expressly
discussed in the BIA’s decision. If challenges to the IJ’s other findings—on
credibility or the merits—are treated as forfeited, see Martinez–Serrano v. INS, 94
F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996), Santay’s petition would likely fail regardless of
the merits of her briefed arguments. We today assume arguendo that Santay’s
testimony was credible, and because the government does not raise the issue, do not
treat any of her briefed arguments as forfeited.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
“Guatemalan women who have been the victim of gang threats because of their
reporting of gang crimes and threats.” Santay analogizes this proposed group to
individuals who have testified against gangs, which was recognized as potentially
cognizable in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013). But, in
Henriquez, the evidence established the social distinction of those who testify
against gangs in El Salvador. Id. at 1092. Santay presented no such evidence here.
Even assuming the group is cognizable, the record does not compel the conclusion
that Santay was threatened for reporting any gang crimes or threats.
2. The agency’s finding that Santay does not qualify for CAT protection
is also supported by substantial evidence. The record does not compel a finding that
the government would acquiesce in Santay’s torture. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2);
Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010). The police arrested
and detained Santay’s partner after she complained of his abuse, and country
conditions reports show that Guatemala has begun to address domestic violence. See
Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 2014); see also Del Cid
Marroquin v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 933, 937 (9th Cir. 2016) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --