FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 10 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EVA MARIA DURAN-CONRADO, No. 17-73445 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-163-456 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 5, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: RAWLINSON and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,*** District Judge. Eva Maria Duran-Conrado, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming 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). *** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying her claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Duran-Conrado failed to establish that she was or would be persecuted by gang members because she was a “woman in El Salvador.”2 Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that gang members did not just target women, but rather targeted all business owners who the gang perceived had money, and persecuted those who failed to pay the gang’s extortion money. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Because Duran-Conrado points to no evidence in the record that would compel a contrary conclusion, see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992), Duran-Conrado’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. 2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Duran-Conrado is not eligible for CAT relief. See Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193, 1195 1 Duran-Conrado’s daughter is a derivative applicant. 2 The BIA assumed that Duran-Conrado’s proposed social group—“women of El Salvador”—was cognizable; Duran-Conrado did not allege any other protected ground as a basis for asylum. 2 (9th Cir. 2003). On this record, she has not shown a clear probability of torture if removed to El Salvador by either government officials or private actors with government acquiescence. See Andrade-Garcia v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[A] general ineffectiveness on the government’s part to investigate and prevent crime will not suffice to show acquiescence.”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 3 17-73445 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Eva Duran-Conrado v. William Barr 10 June 2020 Agency Unpublished cd82b4b2e531f50a5b63ac4b58e4a9a13624d56e
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals