NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 14 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHANNA IVETTE PEREZ DE ALFARO; No. 16-71192 et al., Agency Nos. A202-080-807 Petitioners, A202-080-806 A202-080-836 v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 15, 2019** Pasadena, California Before: M. SMITH, MILLER, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges. Johanna Perez de Alfaro (“Alfaro”), a citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of her application for asylum, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2). withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.1 We have jurisdiction under section 242(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review the agency’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Under the substantial evidence standard, the “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); see also Bringas-Rodriguez, 850 F.3d at 1059. Applying these standards, we deny the petition for review. 1. To establish her eligibility for either asylum or withholding of removal in the context of this case, Alfaro had to show, inter alia, (1) that she was a member of the “particular social group” that is the basis of her claim of persecution, see Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1151–52 (9th Cir. 2010), and (2) that “‘the persecution was committed by the government, or by forces that the government was unable or unwilling to control,’” Bringas-Rodriguez, 850 F.3d at 1062 (quoting Baghdasaryan v. Holder, 592 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010)). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusions that Alfaro failed to establish either element. 1 Alfaro’s two children also applied for relief, but their applications are derivative of hers. 2 a. Assuming without deciding that Alfaro’s proposed social group (“Salvadoran women unable to leave a domestic relationship”) is cognizable under the INA,2 we conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Alfaro failed to establish that she is a member of that social group. As the BIA noted, the factual record confirmed that Alfaro had not shown an inability to leave her domestic relationship: (1) Alfaro was able to live apart from her husband in El Salvador for several years; (2) Alfaro had the option to file for divorce, and her effort to do so was not thwarted by any legal or social obstacle but only by the “unscrupulous” behavior of the attorney she hired; (3) Salvadoran authorities provided assistance to her, including by arresting her husband on ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals