NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 15 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CEFERINO DE LA O-ZELAYA; et al., No. 20-73268 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A208-888-523 A208-888-524 v. A208-577-608 A208-577-609 MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted December 10, 2021 Seattle, Washington Before: McKEOWN, MILLER, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Petitioners Ceferino De La O-Zelaya and Rosa Gomez De La O, husband and wife, and their two minor children petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of their appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, humanitarian asylum, and protection under the Convention Against * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the Salvadoran government was or would be unable or unwilling to control their alleged persecutors. See Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The source of the persecution must be the government or forces that the government is unwilling or unable to control.”). After De La O-Zelaya was shot, the police went to the hospital to “gather information,” and, in response to the officers’ questions, De La O-Zelaya explained: “I was in the gathering or meeting with the party, and somebody shot. I don’t know who did it.” When, as here, “‘the asylum applicant fail[s] to provide the police with sufficiently specific information to permit an investigation or an arrest,’ the police’s inability to solve a crime does not show government inability or unwillingness to control persecutors.” J.R. v. Barr, 975 F.3d 778, 783–84 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Doe v. Holder, 736 F.3d 871, 878 (9th Cir. 2013)); see, e.g., Truong v. Holder, 613 F.3d 938, 941 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam); Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005). Moreover, country conditions evidence shows that El Salvador has taken steps to curb gang violence and corruption. These efforts support the agency’s finding. Cf. Velasquez-Gaspar v. Barr, 976 F.3d 1062, 1064–65 (9th Cir. 2020); 2 see also Sanjaa v. Sessions, 863 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2017) (“To reverse the BIA, we must determine that the evidence not only supports [a contrary] conclusion, but compels it . . . .” (first alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)). We reject De La O-Zelaya’s argument that the agency failed to analyze whether the evidence demonstrates that the Salvadoran government was “unable or unwilling” to control his alleged persecutors. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2000). The agency analyzed the impact of recent local elections, that the police took a report from De La O-Zelaya about his shooting while he was in the hospital, and …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals