NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 10 2023 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS LUDWIN ALEXANDER BARRERA- Nos. 18-72713 CORDOVA, Agency No. A206-891-050 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted December 5, 2022 Pasadena, California Before: M. SMITH, COLLINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Ludwin Alexander Barrera-Cordova, a citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding the order of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under § 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and § 2242(d) of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1683, 1690–91 (2020). We review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. See Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Under the substantial evidence standard, “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We deny the petition. 1. In reviewing the agency’s determination that Barrera-Cordova’s mistreatment did not rise to the level of persecution, we need not decide whether we review only for substantial evidence or whether we review de novo because we conclude that the standard of review does not make a difference here. See Fon v. Garland, 34 F.4th 810, 813 n.1 (9th Cir. 2022). Even assuming that de novo review applies, we agree that the harms to Barrera-Cordova did not rise to the level of persecution. Barrera-Cordova, a member of the ARENA political party, testified that, after he protested at a public meeting of the rival FMLN party, police forcibly removed him from the meeting but that he was not physically harmed. Barrera- Cordova claimed that, after this incident, the FMLN began extorting money from his father, who owned an orange grove, in exchange for not harming Barrera- Cordova. Barrera-Cordova’s father made ten payments, totaling approximately 2 $30,000. On May 31, 2014, four unidentified armed men arrived at Barrera- Cordova’s father’s house in a police patrol vehicle and, with guns drawn, confronted the father about Barrera-Cordova’s whereabouts. The family’s dogs began attacking the men, and Barrera-Cordova’s father, armed with a machete, was able to close the front door. He and Barrera-Cordova, who was inside at the time, were then able to leave through a back door and hide in the orange grove on the family property until the men left. After this incident, Barrera-Cordova’s father made the last extortion payment. Barrera-Cordova returned to his own home in San Salvador, and neither he nor his father received any further …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals