FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 21 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALBA LORENA HERNANDEZ- No. 17-71982 AMAYA, Agency No. A099-664-295 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted January 24, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: CLIFTON and LEE, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK,*** District Judge. * 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). *** The Honorable Frederic Block, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. Alba Lorena Hernandez-Amaya, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from a decision by the Immigration Judge denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Hernandez-Amaya argues that she has been and will be persecuted and tortured by the father of her child, Juan Carlos. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Hernandez-Amaya failed to demonstrate either that the government was unwilling or unable to control Carlos or that the government would be willfully blind to any torture committed against her. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. “To qualify for asylum, an applicant must show that she is a ‘refugee,’ defined as one who ‘is unable or unwilling to return to [her home country] . . . because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’” Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A)). The agents of persecution must be the government, a quasi-official group, or persons or groups that the government is unwilling or unable to control. See Avetova-Elisseva v. INS, 213 F.3d 1192, 1196 (9th Cir. 2000). “A failure to satisfy the . . . standard of proof required to establish eligibility 2 for asylum . . . necessarily results in a failure to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of deportation.” Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 2000). The BIA upheld the immigration judge’s decision to deny Hernandez- Amaya’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal on the grounds that she failed to establish “that the harm was or would be inflicted by the government or by individuals whom the government is unwilling or unable to control.” Hernandez-Amaya argues that this conclusion was in error. However, there is substantial evidence in the record to support this determination. First, Hernandez-Amaya never reported Carlos’s violence to the police, nor did she establish a compelling reason for her failure to do so. In cases of non-governmental persecution, “we consider whether an applicant reported the incidents to police, because in such cases a report ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals