NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 31 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS ADOLFO SASVIN SANTOS, No. 17-72239
Petitioner, Agency No. A206-680-520
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 29, 2022**
Pasadena, California
Before: M. SMITH and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and DRAIN,*** District
Judge.
Luis Adolfo Sasvin Santos petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his
*
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 Gershwin A. Drain, United States District Judge for
the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
applications for asylum and withholding of removal under the Immigration and
Nationality Act, and deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). “We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review final orders of
removal,” Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017), and deny the
petition.
“We review factual findings . . . for substantial evidence.” Id. (quoting
Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014)). This means that “to reverse
such a finding, we must find that the evidence not only supports a contrary
conclusion, but compels it.” Id. (cleaned up).
1. Sasvin Santos argues that the BIA erred in dismissing his claims for
asylum and withholding of removal because, as a victim, witness, and reporter of
gang extortion, he is a part of a particular social group at risk for future
persecution. He contends that those who report gang activity to the police share
the immutable characteristic of reporting a crime, are easily verifiable because of
their interactions with the police, and are recognized by society as a discrete class
of people.
Although we have recognized that those who testify against gang members
in a criminal trial can be members of a particular social group, see Henriquez-
Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir. 2013), we have explicitly held that
people who have only “filed a report with the police,” without more evidence of
2
social distinction, Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1243 (9th Cir. 2020), or
are simply “potential witness[es] to anything that can be characterized as [a] crime
committed by a gang member,” Aguilar-Osorio v. Garland, 991 F.3d 997, 999 (9th
Cir. 2021), do not qualify as particular social groups.
2. Sasvin Santos next argues that the BIA erred in denying his CAT
claim because it disregarded his testimony that the Guatemalan police work with
gangs as well as country conditions reports and news articles evidence showing
there is widespread corruption, extortion, and abuse within Guatemala’s police
force.
We deny Sasvin Santos’s petition because substantial evidence supports the
agency’s decision. Although Sasvin Santos argues that gangs are still looking for
him, he testified that people looked for him only once in two and a half years. And
while Sasvin Santos’s theory that the police tipped off the gangs after he reported
their extortion activities is plausible, as the IJ acknowledged, the fact that gang
members threatened him after he left the police station does not compel the
conclusion that police would acquiesce to his torture. When Sasvin Santos went to
the police, they indicated they were willing to help him, but Sasvin Santos was
unable to provide the information requested. Moreover, the gang members reacted
with hostility to Sasvin Santos’s police report, and news articles reveal the
Guatemalan government has undertaken steps to prevent gang activities, extortion,
3
and police corruption.
PETITION DENIED.
4