NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 16 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IFAMIA DE LOS ANGELES RIVERA DE No. 18-73177 CANALES; et al., Agency Nos. A202-120-333 Petitioners, A202-120-334 A202-120-335 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 11, 2022** Portland, Oregon Before: GRABER, BEA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Ifamia de Los Angeles Rivera de Canales seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying her and her daughters’ applications 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 this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). and withholding of removal.1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. To be eligible for asylum, a noncitizen must establish that “he or she has suffered past persecution or [that] he or she has a well-founded fear of future persecution.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b). Rivera de Canales concedes that she has not suffered past persecution, so only whether she has a well-founded fear of future persecution is at issue here. To establish a well-founded fear of future persecution, Rivera de Canales must establish, among other things, that there is a reasonable possibility she will be persecuted if she returns to El Salvador and that the persecution would be “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(i). To be eligible for asylum, Rivera de Canales must establish that a protected ground was a “central reason” for the persecution. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 358 (9th Cir. 2017). To be eligible for withholding of removal, she must establish that a protected ground was “a reason” for the persecution. Id. at 360. We review the agency’s denial of applications for asylum and withholding of removal for substantial evidence, Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018), meaning that the agency’s “findings of fact are conclusive unless any 1 Rivera de Canales’s minor daughters were considered derivative applicants because they were included in Rivera de Canales’s application. They did not file separate applications. 2 reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 12 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). The basis for Rivera de Canales’s fear of returning to El Salvador is as follows. In August 2014, Rivera de Canales heard from her neighbors that two teenaged girls living in her neighborhood were raped by members of the MS-13 gang. About a week after the rapes, the girls’ mother invited Rivera de Canales and two other women to her house and said that she had filed a police report but the police did not investigate. The next week, the girls’ mother hosted a second meeting that Rivera de Canales and one other woman attended. Rivera de Canales heard rumors …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals