Luz Maria Guzman-Soria; v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUZ MARIA GUZMAN-SORIA; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70701
Agency Nos. A201-204-109
A208-120-696
A208-120-697
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted May 17, 2019
Seattle, Washington
Before: KLEINFELD and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and PAULEY,** District
Judge.
Luz Maria Guzman-Soria and her children Vanessa Soto-Guzman and Angel
Soto-Guzman petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”), denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal,
FILED
JUN 20 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 Honorable William H. Pauley III, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
The petitioners have not demonstrated that Mexican society recognizes those
who say something useful to police in apprehending suspects as a distinct
“particular social group.” We assume for purposes of this decision only that the
“particular social group” of informants in Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d
1081, 1092 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), encompasses the petitioners’ proposed social
group, if there is evidence of the distinctiveness of those groups in the country at
issue. Even assuming that Henriquez-Rivas extends to those who do not testify in
court, the administrative record, including the news clippings to which the
petitioners direct our attention, does not compel a conclusion contrary to the
BIA’s. Substantial evidence in the record as a whole supports the BIA’s finding
that the petitioners failed to establish that Mexican society recognizes their
proffered particular social group and thus supports the denials of asylum and
withholding of removal. See also Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 1029 n.2 (9th Cir.
2011) (“An application for asylum is automatically considered a simultaneous
request for withholding of removal.” (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1208.3(b))); cf. Henriquez-
Rivas, 707 F.3d at 1092 (explaining that the BIA had failed to consider “significant
2

-- 2 of 3 --

evidence” of the recognition in Salvadoran society of the particular social group at
issue such as the enactment of a “special witness protection law”).
Petitioners have not argued in their brief to this court that they are entitled to
Convention relief, so those claims which were made before the BIA, are waived.
See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996).
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --