NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 14 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARCOS ISRAEL HERNANDEZ- No. 18-72842 RODRIGUEZ, AKA Marcos Israel Hernandez, Agency No. A099-481-148 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 14, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: FRIEDLAND, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges. Marcos Israel Hernandez-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal 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). appeal from a decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. 1. To be eligible for withholding of removal, Petitioner must demonstrate a “clear probability” of future persecution on account of a statutorily protected ground. Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014). A petitioner may generate a presumption of eligibility for withholding of removal by demonstrating past persecution. See Aden v. Wilkinson, 989 F.3d 1073, 1086 (9th Cir. 2021). We do not disturb the BIA’s conclusion that the unfulfilled threat against Petitioner for failure to pay or join the Mara Salvatrucha (MS) gang does not show that he experienced past persecution in El Salvador. See e.g., Lim v. I.N.S., 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Threats standing alone . . . constitute past persecution in only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual ‘suffering or harm.’” (citation omitted)). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner did not demonstrate that his membership in either of the proposed particular social groups “landowners in El Salvador” or “family of Camilo Hernandez,” or his anti- gang political opinion, was a reason for his alleged persecution. See Macedo Templos v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 877, 881–82 (9th Cir. 2021). The IJ and BIA 2 recognized that the MS gang extorts both those who own land and those who do not, and there was insufficient record evidence to show that the gang targeted Petitioner specifically because of his family’s landowning status. Harm on account of general crime and violence does not establish a nexus to a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). Petitioner argues that the nature of the persecution against his family differed from that of the general populace because the MS gang seeks to displace landowners and use their land as a base of operations. This argument is speculative, and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion to that reached by the BIA. The agency’s conclusion …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals