JUAN PASCUAL ANTONIO-ANTONIO and MARIA DE LOS ANGELES SALVADOR-PEDRO v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN PASCUAL ANTONIO-ANTONIO
and MARIA DE LOS ANGELES
SALVADOR-PEDRO,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
Nos. 19-71699
20-71903
Agency Nos. A206-459-997
A206-459-995
MEMORANDUM*
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 8, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: NGUYEN and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and BOUGH,*** District Judge.
In these consolidated petitions for review, Juan Pascual Antonio-Antonio
* 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 Stephen R. Bough, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.
FILED
DEC 12 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2
and Maria de los Angeles Salvador-Pedro (collectively, “Petitioners”), spouses
who are natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“Board”) order denying their applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)
(petition No. 19-71699) and of the Board’s order denying their motion to reopen
(petition No. 20-71903). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
de novo the legal question whether a particular social group is cognizable, except
to the extent deference is owed to the Board’s interpretation of the phrase
“particular social group.” Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241–42 (9th
Cir. 2020). We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Gu v. Gonzales,
454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir. 2006). “We review the Board’s denial of a motion
to reopen for abuse of discretion, but review purely legal questions de novo.”
Bonilla v. Lynch, 840 F.3d 575, 581 (9th Cir. 2016). We deny the petitions for
review.
1. As to petition No. 19-71699, the Board did not err in concluding that
Petitioners’ proposed social group, “young Guatemalan males who suffer torture
due to rejection of gang recruitment, and who could be potential witnesses after
reports were named by the police against the gangs,” is not cognizable. See Reyes
v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (a particular social group is “(1)
composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined

-- 2 of 4 --

3
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)). Petitioners failed to
demonstrate that the proposed group is sufficiently particular and socially visible
within Guatemala to constitute a particular social group. See Aguilar-Osorio v.
Garland, 991 F.3d 997, 999–1000 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that the petitioner failed
to show the proposed group of “witnesses who … could testify against gang
members” was socially recognizable and distinct); Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d
849, 854–55 (9th Cir. 2009) (young Guatemalan men who resist gang recruitment
do not constitute a particular social group).
2. Although Petitioners did not expressly propose a particular social
group based on their family membership, the Board addressed this potential claim
and determined that any harm Petitioners experienced was not on account of their
familial relationships. Petitioners have waived any challenge to this determination.
See Alcaraz v. I.N.S., 384 F.3d 1150, 1161 (9th Cir. 2004). Because the Board
properly determined that Petitioners’ proposed social group is not cognizable and
that any harm they experienced was not based on a protected ground, Petitioners
are ineligible for asylum.1
1 Petitioners failed to challenge the denial of their withholding claim on appeal to
the Board or in briefing before this court. Such claim is therefore waived. See
Martinez-Serrano v. I.N.S., 94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
3. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of CAT relief.
Petitioners failed to show they will more likely than not be tortured by government
actors or with government consent or acquiescence upon return to Guatemala. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
4. We reject Petitioners’ contention that the Board erred by assigning
their appeal to a single Board member rather than a three-member panel. See 8
C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(6) (listing circumstances where review by a three-member
panel is permitted).
5. As to petition No. 20-71903, the Board did not abuse its discretion in
denying Petitioners’ untimely motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (a
motion to reopen “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which the
final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be
reopened”). Petitioners contend that the Immigration Court lacked jurisdiction
over their proceedings because their Notices to Appear did not specify the times
and dates of their hearings, but this argument is foreclosed by our precedent. See
United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc).
PETITIONS DENIED.

-- 4 of 4 --