NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KAREN ESTELA ALVAREZ-MENJIVAR; No. 16-71661 EDGARDO VLADIMIR RODRIGUEZ- ALVAREZ, Agency Nos. A202-001-947 A202-001-948 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 16, 2022** Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Karen Estela Alvarez-Menjivar, and her son, Edgardo Vladimir Rodriguez- Alvarez, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s * 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). decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm petitioners experienced did not rise to the level of persecution. See Duran- Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2019) (record did not compel finding that harm rises to the level of persecution where perpetrators took no violent actions against the petitioner or his family beyond threats). Substantial evidence also supports the conclusion that petitioners did not establish a well- founded fear of future persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to present “compelling, objective evidence demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum claims fail. Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this case they did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at 1190. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because petitioners did not establish that it is more likely than not they would be tortured by 2 16-71661 or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). We reject as unsupported by the record petitioners’ contentions that the agency failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 16-71661 16-71661 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Karen Alvarez-Menjivar v. Merrick Garland 22 March 2022 Agency Unpublished d2e5a31d02fe06cc9b13f68aa0e747ff62b26b31
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals