Gloria Juarez-Hernandez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GLORIA JUAREZ-HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-70654
Agency No. A205-582-228
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Gloria Juarez-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 18 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-70654
de novo the legal question of whether a particular social group is cognizable,
except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the
governing statutes and regulations. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-
42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings. Id. at 1241. We deny the petition for review.
The agency did not err in concluding that Juarez-Hernandez failed to
establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch,
842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a
particular social group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1)
composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined
with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting
Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). We reject as
unsupported by the record Juarez-Hernandez’s contentions that the agency erred in
its analysis of her withholding of removal claim. Thus, Juarez-Hernandez’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
In light of this disposition, we need not reach Juarez-Hernandez’s
contentions regarding the agency’s adverse credibility finding. See Simeonov v.
Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required
to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-70654
On August 1, 2019, the court granted a stay of removal. The stay of removal
remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --