NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JENNY MARISOL SANDOVAL- No. 21-70084 VILLEGAS; ET AL., Agency Nos. A208-163-062 Petitioners, A208-163-063 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 14, 2023** Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. Jenny Marisol Sandoval-Villegas and her minor child, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the * 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). Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners did not establish that the government of El Salvador is unable or unwilling to control the agents of any feared persecution. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (record did not compel a finding that the government was unwilling or unable to control the feared harm). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tortured by 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); Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014) (“torture must be ‘inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity’”) (internal citation omitted). Sandoval-Villegas’s contentions that the agency ignored evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis of her claims is unsupported by the record. Petitioners’ opposed motion to remand (Docket Entry No. 16) is denied. 2 21-70084 The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 21-70084 21-70084 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Jenny Sandoval-Villegas v. Merrick Garland 20 March 2023 Unpublished 196a95ecc7d163394654e96e7875fec96888d486
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals