BRENDA GODINEZ-VELASQUEZ, AKA Brenda Godinez De Ruiz v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRENDA GODINEZ-VELASQUEZ,
AKA Brenda Godinez De Ruiz,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 19-71783
Agency No. A094-955-439
MEMORANDUM*
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
FILED
FEB 5 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 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.
2

-- 2 of 2 --