Withholding of removal & asylum; Whether petitioner established a “legally cognizable social group” entitled to protection; 8 USC § 1101(a)(42); Characterization of the social group; Matter of W-Y-C- & H-O-B- (BIA); Claim for protection under the Convention against Torture (CAT); 8 CFR § 1208.18(a)(1); Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA); Immigration judge (IJ)

The court held that the BIA and IJ did not err in denying petitioner-Mateo-Esteban’s claim for asylum and withholding of removal where the particular social group that he initially identified, “people afraid of gangs in Guatemala,” was not a legally cognizable particular group. He was 5 years old when he entered the country illegally with his father in 2015. He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. The IJ and the BIA ordered him removed, ruling that “people afraid of gangs in Guatemala” was not a legally cognizable group and that he did not show that the Guatemalan government would acquiesce in his torture if he returned. The court first considered Mateo-Esteban’s claim that the IJ and the BIA mischaracterized the social group he claimed to be a part of, that it should have been “minors threatened to be kidnapped by gangs in Guatemala.” But the court rejected this assertion, noting that when “pressed by the IJ about whether he was sure he wanted to define his social group as ‘people afraid of gangs,’ Mateo-Esteban’s attorney admitted ‘that is the only social group, really, that we can really put him under.’” The court concluded that given this “concession, much more than ‘substantial evidence’ supports the BIA’s finding that this was the lone group Mateo-Esteban presented to the IJ.” It held that he did not show “that he belongs to a legally cognizable particular social group. That defeats his claims for asylum and withholding of removal.” As to his claim for CAT protection, the court held that he failed to show “by a preponderance of the evidence that he will likely face torture in Guatemala and that it will be inflicted ‘with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official.’” It found that the 2018 United Nation’s Human Rights Report did not support his claim where the Report suggested that the Guatemalan government is trying to combat police misconduct and private violence, and his father’s failure to report extortion and the threats to kidnap Mateo-Esteban to the authorities weighed against him. The court held that taking “all the evidence Mateo-Esteban relies on at face value, [it] does not compel a finding that the government would acquiesce in his torture should he return.” The court denied his petition for review.