CAROLINA GONZALEZ-QUEVEDO, AKA Karina Gonzalez-Quevero, AKA Carolina Guitron v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CAROLINA GONZALEZ-QUEVEDO,
AKA Karina Gonzalez-Quevero, AKA
Carolina Guitron,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-73905
Agency No. A076-658-160
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 8, 2019**
Seattle, Washington
Before: IKUTA and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and FREUDENTHAL,***
District Judge.
FILED
FEB 21 2019
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).
*** The Honorable Nancy D. Freudenthal, United States District Judge for
the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Carolina Gonzalez-Quevedo petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ)
denying her claims for withholding of removal and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Gonzalez-Quevedo
was not entitled to withholding of removal because she failed to establish a nexus
between any past or feared future harm and her membership in the particular social
group that she defined as “rape victims.” See Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d
351, 359 (9th Cir. 2017).
On appeal to the BIA, Gonzalez-Quevedo asserted membership in the
particular social groups defined as “victim[s] of the Mexican criminal gangs, who
ha[ve] reported their actions to the police,” and “victims of sexual assault who
have been denied protection by authorities,” but she failed to assert membership in
these groups to the IJ. See Matter of W-Y-C-, 27 I & N Dec. 189, 191 (BIA 2018).
The BIA therefore did not err by not considering the merits of these claims. See In
re J-Y-C-, 24 I & N Dec. 260, 261 n.1 (BIA 2007).
The IJ erred when he stated that “[t]here is no indication that the police were
made aware” of the rape, because Gonzalez-Quevedo credibly testified that she
filed a police report regarding the rape but that the police did not believe her and
2

-- 2 of 3 --

did not act on her report, and such testimony is relevant to the resolution of
Gonzalez-Quevedo’s CAT claim. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026,
1034 (9th Cir. 2014). Gonzalez-Quevedo raised the IJ’s error on appeal before the
BIA, but the BIA failed to address this argument in its decision. Because “we
cannot conduct a meaningful review of the BIA’s decision . . . where the BIA
failed to provide a reasoned explanation,” Zhiqiang Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1011,
1020 (9th Cir. 2011), we grant the petition with respect to Gonzalez-Quevedo’s
CAT claim so that the BIA may consider this argument in the first instance and
provide a reasoned explanation for its decision, see Castillo v. INS, 951 F.2d 1117,
1121 (9th Cir. 1991).
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
3

-- 3 of 3 --