NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 05 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS GUILLERMINA IBARRA- No. 16-73296 CASTANEDA; VALERIA RODRIGUEZ- IBARRA; MANUEL D. RODRIGUEZ- Agency Nos. A205-666-473 IBARRA; OSVALDO M. RODRIGUEZ- A205-666-474 IBARRA, A205-666-475 A205-666-230 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted February 12, 2019 San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER, O’SCANNLAIN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Guillermina Ibarra-Castaneda (Ibarra) and her children1 petition for review * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 1 The children’s claims are derivative of Ibarra’s, and the success of their claims depends on the success of her claims. of the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) of her asylum claim. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and review the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence. See Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (2014), as amended. To reverse the Board, “we must determine that the evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it.” Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation and alteration omitted) (emphases in the original). “To establish asylum eligibility, an applicant must show that [s]he is unable or unwilling to return to [her] country of nationality because of [past] persecution or a well-founded fear of [future] persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 503 (9th Cir. 2013) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 1. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of asylum based on past persecution. To prove past persecution, a petitioner must establish that: “(1) [her] treatment rises to the level of persecution; (2) the persecution was on account of one or more protected grounds; and (3) the persecution was committed by the government, or by forces that the government was unable or unwilling to control.” 2 Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1062 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Ibarra’s claim failed on the third prong. Although there was testimony that individual police officers were involved in actions directed toward harming Ibarra’s brothers, the evidence was not sufficient to compel a finding of government involvement. Nor did the evidence compel a finding that the government was unwilling or unable to control nongovernmental forces. Police arrested the killer of Ibarra’s brother, and took reports documenting many of Ibarra’s complaints. Any purported failure to investigate was due to Ibarra’s and her family’s inability to provide detailed information. See Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that petitioner failed to establish government inability or unwillingness to control nongovernmental forces where petitioner admitted that he failed to provide identifying and specific information to the police). 2. Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s conclusion that Ibarra lacked an objective, well-founded fear of future persecution. “To ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals