NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 10 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOLORES YANETH BONILLA DE No. 17-71589
RODRIGUEZ,
Agency No. A206-136-937
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 8, 2019**
Seattle, Washington
Before: WATFORD and MILLER, Circuit Judges, and BENITEZ,*** District
Judge.
Dolores Bonilla de Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing her
*
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).
***
The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The
arguments in her brief challenge only the agency’s conclusions regarding Bonilla
de Rodriguez’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal. We deny the
petition for review because substantial evidence supports the agency’s
determination that Bonilla de Rodriguez failed to establish that she is a member of
the particular social group that she alleges. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i); 8
U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A).
Bonilla de Rodriguez argues that she has a well-founded fear of persecution
on account of her membership in a particular social group consisting of married
women in El Salvador who are unable to leave their relationships. Even assuming
that Matter of A-R-C-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 388 (BIA 2014), is still valid, and that
Bonilla de Rodriguez’s proposed particular social group is cognizable under its
reasoning, the BIA did not unreasonably conclude that Bonilla de Rodriguez failed
to demonstrate that she belongs to that group.
Bonilla de Rodriguez testified that she came to the United States because she
feared her husband, who raped her and physically abused her and their son
between 2007 and 2011. Her husband told her that she could not be with anybody
else if she was not with him and threatened to kill her. According to Bonilla de
Rodriguez, she “separated from him” to live with her aunts for three months,
2
during which time her husband showed up on three occasions and tried
unsuccessfully to take their son away. She then moved to her parents’ house for
five months. Bonilla de Rodriguez had no contact with her husband during those
five months before she left for the United States. Based on these facts, substantial
evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Bonilla de Rodriguez was able to
leave her relationship and therefore was not a member of her proposed social
group.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3