Edvin Argueta Gonzalez v. Merrick Garland
16-71637
| 9th Cir. | Feb 23, 2022Background
- Petitioner Edvin Joel Argueta Gonzalez, a Guatemalan national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; the IJ denied relief and denied voluntary departure; the BIA dismissed his appeal.
- The agency found Argueta Gonzalez's asylum application time-barred; he did not challenge that determination on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
- The BIA/agency concluded he failed to establish membership in a cognizable particular social group under the M-E-V-G framework and failed to show persecution on account of a protected ground.
- The agency determined the harm he feared was criminal/gang-related (theft/harassment) and lacked nexus to a protected ground; substantial-evidence review supported that finding.
- The agency denied CAT relief, finding Argueta Gonzalez did not show it was more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the government’s consent or acquiescence.
- The court held it lacked jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of voluntary departure and rejected the challenge to BIA streamlining procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of asylum filing | Argueta Gonzalez sought relief despite agency finding application untimely | Agency: asylum was time-barred and no changed/extraordinary circumstances excused lateness | Court: Petitioner did not challenge timeliness; asylum claim denied |
| Cognizability of particular social group and nexus to persecution | Argueta Gonzalez argued he belonged to a protected social group and was persecuted for it | Agency: group not shown to meet immutable/common/particularity/social-distinctness criteria and persecutors motivated by crime, not protected ground | Court: Substantial evidence supports agency; PSG not established and no nexus; withholding denied |
| CAT relief | Argueta Gonzalez argued risk of torture upon return | Agency: record does not show torture more likely than not or government consent/acquiescence | Court: Substantial evidence supports denial of CAT relief |
| Voluntary departure & BIA procedures | Argueta Gonzalez challenged denial of voluntary departure and BIA streamlining | Government: denial of voluntary departure is discretionary (unreviewable); BIA’s final order was not a streamlined decision | Court: Lacked jurisdiction over discretionary voluntary departure; rejected streamlining challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238 (9th Cir. 2020) (standard of review for social-group cognizability and BIA deference)
- Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not raised in opening brief are waived)
- Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016) (elements required to establish a particular social group)
- Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2010) (criminally motivated violence lacks nexus to protected ground)
- Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard for CAT relief)
- Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2013) (no jurisdiction to review discretionary denial of voluntary departure)