FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 11 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARIA ADELINA GUARDADO; et al., No. 18-71255 Petitioners, Agency Nos. A206-700-188 A206-700-189 v. A206-700-190 MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 8, 2023** Pasadena, California Before: KLEINFELD, HURWITZ, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Maria Guardado, Jorge Alvarez-Guardado, and Jennifer Alvarez-Guardado petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s decision affirming an immigration judge’s denials of their applications for asylum, withholding of * 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). removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and a motion for continuance. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). The Board conducted its own review of evidence and law, so we review its decision. Guerra v. Barr, 974 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition. The Board correctly decided that the threats petitioners received did not rise to the level of past persecution.1 Threats alone can constitute past persecution “in only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm.” Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Unfulfilled threats are very rarely sufficient to rise to the level of persecution . . . .” Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 647 (9th Cir. 2021). This case is not in that small category. As petitioners testified, although they received threats from the gangs, no threats were ever carried out. Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s factual determination that Guardado failed to establish that the gangs would persecute her because of her 1 We need not decide whether the Board’s determination is subject to de novo or substantial-evidence review, because it passes both standards. Cf. Singh v. Garland, 57 F.4th 643, 652 (9th Cir. 2022) (“[W]e need not address whether de novo review should apply, or discuss the nuances of the two standards, because the harm Singh suffered rose to the level of persecution under the more deferential substantial evidence standard of review.”) (internal quotations and alteration omitted). 2 membership in the social group of “Salvadoran business owners who on account of their business ownership alone fall victim to gang violence and [un]lawfulness” or “a family [that] actively opposes gang violence and [un]lawfulness.” Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 890 (9th Cir. 2021) (standard of review). Substantial evidence supports the proposition that the gangs would extort anyone who they believed had money, regardless of whether they belong to one of these social groups. Indeed, Guardado testified that she faced extortion not only when she was operating the tortilla shop but also as a parent …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals