Carlos Conde Quevedo v. William Barr, 947 F.3d 1238

Petitioner Carlos Arnoldo Conde Quevedo, a Guatemalan national, was stabbed in two gang attacks in 2000–2001 and reported the incidents to police.
In 2009 he applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; IJ denied relief and the BIA dismissed his appeal in 2012.
This Court in 2014 affirmed denial of asylum and CAT but remanded the withholding-of-removal claim for reconsideration under intervening Ninth Circuit and BIA decisions.
On remand Petitioner’s proposed particular social group was “people who report the criminal activity of gangs to police.”
The administrative record included State Department and CRS reports on gang violence but no evidence that Guatemalan society recognizes crime-reporters as a distinct social group or that reporters receive state protection.
The BIA concluded the proposed group lacked the required social distinctness; this Court affirmed as to withholding and dismissed Petitioner’s renewed CAT argument for lack of jurisdiction because the earlier decision resolved CAT.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether “people who report the criminal activity of gangs to police” constitute a cognizable particular social group for withholding of removal	Conde argued his reporting led to repeated attacks and that reporters are a socially distinct group subject to persecution	Government/BIA argued the record lacks society-specific evidence that reporters are perceived as a distinct group or are publicly identifiable or protected	Held: Substantial evidence supports BIA; proposed group not socially distinct, withholding denied
Whether the BIA could reconsider CAT on remand	Conde argued BIA should readdress CAT eligibility on remand	Government argued BIA was bound by the Court’s prior remand scope and could not reopen CAT	Held: Court lacks jurisdiction; BIA properly declined to revisit CAT because earlier opinion disposed of it

Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (public testimony against gangs can show social distinctness in some cases)
Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2014) (requires evidence-based, society-specific inquiry into social recognition)
Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016) (affirms Chevron deference to BIA’s particular-social-group interpretation)
Rios v. Lynch, 807 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2015) (social distinction equates to social recognition by the relevant society)
Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2017) (factual findings by BIA reviewed for substantial evidence)
Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 2013) (personal retribution does not establish persecution on account of a protected ground)
Mendez-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2006) (BIA bound by the scope of the court’s remand)
Olivas-Motta v. Whitaker, 910 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2018) (BIA cannot expand the court-ordered remand scope)
Barbosa v. Barr, 926 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2019) (distinguishes factual social-recognition findings from the ultimate legal question of cognizability)