NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 13 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROXANA LILIBETH MELENDEZ- No. 20-71832 CORDOVA, Agency No. A209-440-275 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 9, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: WATFORD and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and FREUDENTHAL,*** District Judge. * 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 Nancy D. Freudenthal, United States District Judge for the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation. Petitioner Roxana Melendez-Cordova, a citizen of El Salvador, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order finding her ineligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). She also challenges the BIA’s order dismissing her appeal and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) orders. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. We “review questions of law, including an agency’s determination of its own jurisdiction, de novo.” Reynoso-Cisneros v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1001, 1002 (9th Cir. 2007). Denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief are reviewed for substantial evidence. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). 1. With respect to Melendez’s asylum claim, substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Melendez failed to establish that she suffered harm that rose to the level of persecution. To qualify as a refugee, an applicant must establish that she “is unable or unwilling to return to h[er] home country because of a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1062 (9th Cir. 2017) (simplified). Melendez has not shown that she has suffered past persecution. Persecution is an “extreme concept” that does not encompass every form of mistreatment but is 2 instead defined as “the infliction of suffering or harm . . . in a way regarded as offensive.” Li v. Ashcroft, 356 F.3d 1153, 1158 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (simplified). Melendez contends that the gang’s personal confrontations and “repeated threats” to harm her and members of her family resulted in emotional and psychological trauma that rose to the level of persecution. But the IJ determined that these threats did not rise to the level of persecution because Melendez did not suffer “severe physical harm” and was “able to return home without further injury.” The record shows that these threats occurred on only five occasions and exclusively near her school, that the gang members never followed through with their threats to Melendez or her family, and that she continued to attend school without incident before moving to the United States. We do not question whether these threats were frightening, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals