Summary
The Sixth Circuit denied a petition for review of a BIA decision rejecting asylum and withholding of removal for a Guatemalan woman who claimed persecution based on membership in proposed particular social groups: "unmarried Guatemalan women with children not living with the father" and "Guatemalan women unable to leave a relationship." The court held that the BIA properly applied *Matter of A-B-* (2018) to find these groups not cognizable because they lacked particularity and social distinction, and that the petitioner forfeited her CAT claim and failed to exhaust her argument regarding indigenous status as a separate social group. The decision reaffirms that domestic-violence-based social groups must meet the particularity and social-distinction requirements, and that new grounds raised for the first time on appeal are not reviewable.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the BIA erred in rejecting the proposed social groups 'Guatemalan women unable to leave a relationship' and 'unmarried Guatemalan women with children not living with the father of the children' as cognizable particular social groups.
- Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the new proposed group 'unmarried indigenous Guatemalan women with children not living with the father of their children' raised for the first time on appeal.
- Whether Nolasco-Morales forfeited her arguments on the proposed groups and CAT claim.
Holdings
- The group is not cognizable because it is virtually indistinguishable from the group rejected in Matter of A-B-, which held that such a group is circularly defined and lacks particularity.
- The group lacks particularity and social distinction and is therefore not cognizable.
- The court lacks jurisdiction because the argument was not presented to the agency, as required by 8 U.S.C. §1252(d)(1).
- By failing to address the BIA's reasoning on appeal, she forfeited those arguments.
- The CAT claim is forfeited because it was not addressed in the brief.
Key quotations
“the proposed particular social group (1) shares a common, immutable characteristic, (2) is defined with particularity, and (3) is perceived as a group by society.” (at 4)
“The group cannot be circularly defined by the harm suffered.” (at 4)
“Because Nolasco-Morales does not address either of the two proposed social groups she presented to the IJ and BIA, she has not shown that the BIA erred in refusing to grant her claims for asylum and withholding of removal.” (at 5)
Factual background
Nolasco-Morales is indigenous Guatemalan. She was raised by her mother after her father abandoned the family. She had two children with Rolfy. Rolfy's father was abusive, hitting her once and threatening to kill her. Rolfy abandoned the family. Rolfy's cousin also threatened her. Nolasco-Morales returned to her mother's house and later left for the United States. She feared harm from Rolfy's father and cousin.
Procedural history
Nolasco-Morales and her children entered the United States illegally in 2015, were placed in removal proceedings, conceded removability, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection. The immigration judge denied relief, and the BIA dismissed the appeal. Nolasco-Morales filed this petition for review.