Abel Diaz-Orozco v. Merrick Garland, 19-72541

Abel Diaz-Orozco, a Guatemalan national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; an IJ denied relief and the BIA dismissed his appeal.
Central legal question concerned whether Diaz-Orozco belonged to a cognizable particular social group (PSG) for asylum/withholding purposes.
The BIA concluded he was not a member of a cognizable PSG; the Ninth Circuit reviews PSG cognizability de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence.
The Ninth Circuit held the agency did not err in finding no cognizable PSG and declined to reach the asylum/withholding merits; some legal challenges were unreviewable for failure to exhaust before the BIA.
The court found the BIA improperly treated internal relocation as dispositive of the CAT claim and therefore granted review of the CAT denial and remanded for further proceedings; removal was stayed pending the BIA decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Diaz-Orozco is a member of a cognizable particular social group	Diaz-Orozco argued his asserted group met immutability, particularity, and social distinction	Agency argued the proposed group did not meet the M-E-V-G criteria	Court: Agency did not err; PSG not established
Whether the IJ/BIA misarticulated the particular social group	Diaz-Orozco contended the agency considered the wrong PSG formulation	Government defended the agency's framing and analysis	Court: lacks jurisdiction to consider this challenge because it was not raised before the BIA
Whether the agency ignored evidence or erred legally in PSG analysis	Diaz-Orozco claimed the BIA ignored evidence and misapplied law	Government maintained the agency adequately considered the record and explained its decision	Court: agency sufficiently considered evidence; arguments fail
Whether denial of CAT relief was proper given internal relocation	Diaz-Orozco argued relocation would be impossible and CAT relief should be granted	BIA relied on possibility of relocation to deny CAT relief	Court: BIA erred by treating relocation as dispositive; remand required for proper CAT analysis

Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for legal questions)
Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238 (9th Cir. 2020) (deference and review standards for BIA decisions)
Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016) (PSG must meet immutability, particularity, social distinction)
Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 2016) (perceived wealth not sufficiently particular for PSG)
Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need only adequately consider evidence and announce reasons)
Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review issues not presented to the agency)
Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts need not decide unnecessary issues)
Maldonado v. Lynch, 786 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (internal relocation is one non-determinative factor in CAT analysis)
INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002) (per curiam) (remand to agency for further proceedings)