NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 13 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS MADAY ELIZABETH MARENCO- No. 17-73279 HERNANDEZ; and JHENNIFER MICHELL MARENCO-HERNANDEZ Agency Nos. A206-800-286 A206-800-285 Petitioners, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted August 31, 2020 Seattle, Washington Before: BYBEE and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and BASTIAN,** Chief District Judge. Maday Elizabeth Marenco-Hernandez (“Marenco-Hernandez”), a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the order of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Stanley A. Bastian, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation. Convention Against Torture (the “Torture Convention”). Marenco-Hernandez’s daughter, Jhennifer Michell Marenco-Hernandez, is a derivative beneficiary with respect to her mother’s application for asylum only. See Ali v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 780, 782 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R § 1208.21. We have jurisdiction under § 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant in part and deny in part the petitions for review. I Marenco-Hernandez’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal are predicated on persecution by members of the MS-13 gang, who allegedly extorted and twice raped her, and by Salvadoran government doctors, who, after the first rape resulted in pregnancy, allegedly sedated her for three months and forced her to carry her pregnancy to term. We hold that the agency permissibly concluded that the horrific mistreatment of Marenco-Hernandez by MS-13 did not constitute persecution on account of a protected ground, but that the agency erred by failing to address Marenco-Hernandez’s claim that she was persecuted at the hands of Salvadoran government doctors. A To establish eligibility for asylum, an applicant must show that she was persecuted, or has a well-founded fear of persecution, “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” See 2 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); see also id. § 1158(b)(1)(B) (applicant must show that one of these protected grounds “was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant”). “To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must show a ‘clear probability’ of future persecution” on account of one of the same protected grounds. Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). However, for a withholding claim, the protected ground need only be “a reason” for the persecution, and not (as with asylum) “one central reason.” Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351, 358–59 (9th Cir. 2017). Here, the agency properly concluded that, under either standard, Marenco-Hernandez’s past or potential future mistreatment by MS-13 lacked the requisite …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals