Gricelda Arellano Rodriguez v. William Barr
18-72735
9th Cir.
Aug 11, 2020
Check Treatment
Docket

GRICELDA NEREYDA ARELLANO RODRIGUEZ; CLAUDIA YARELI RIOS ARELLANO, Petitioners, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 18-72735

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

August 11, 2020

Agency Nos. A206-268-456, A206-268-457

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MEMORANDUM1

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 24, 20202
San Francisco, California

Before: GOULD, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Concurrence by Judge BRESS

Gricelda Arellano Rodriguez (Arellano) and her daughter, Claudia Yareli Rios Arellano, petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge‘s (IJ) decision denying their claims for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

Where the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law rather than adopting the IJ‘s decision, “our review is limited to the BIA‘s decision, except to the extent the IJ‘s opinion is expressly adopted.” (quotations omitted). Reviewing questions of law de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence, , we grant the petition for review.

Arellano is a native and citizen of Mexico. In Mexico, she lived with her partner Jose Ancelmo Rios. Rios physically abused Arellano and forced her to have sex with him. Arellano and her daughter fled Rios, entered the United States, and sought asylum and withholding of removal based on Arellano‘s membership in the particular social group of “Mexican women who cannot leave a domestic relationship,” or, in the alternative, “Mexican women who are viewed as property by their domestic partners.” Arellano‘s daughter is a derivative applicant.

The BIA did not analyze Arellano‘s proposed social groups. Instead, the BIA summarily concluded that in light of , Arellano‘s proposed social groups were not “legally cognizable” because they “do not ‘exist independently of the harm asserted’ as required for a group to be a cognizable particular social group.” requires a “rigorous analysis . . . in determining asylum claims, especially where victims of private violence claim persecution based on membership in a particular social group.” . Pursuant to our opinion in , we grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA for further consideration of the petitioners’ asylum and withholding claims.

PETITION GRANTED.

Arellano Rodriguez v. Barr, No. 18-72735

Bress, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment:

For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in , I believe the petition for review in this case also should be denied. But because is now circuit precedent, under I am compelled to grant the petition in this case.

Notes

1
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
2
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).