NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 27 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RUTH NOEMI IZAGUIRRE-SALMERON, No. 18-71986 AKA Ruth Noemi Izaguirre-Salmeron De Pineda; OSCAR JAFETH PINEDA- Agency Nos. A208-291-785 IZAGUIRRE, A208-291-783 Petitioners, MEMORANDUM** v. MERRICK B. GARLAND,* Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 21, 2023*** Before: OWENS, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. * Merrick B. Garland is substituted for his predecessor, Matthew G. Whitaker, as Attorney General of the United States. Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). ** 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). Ruth Noemi Izaguirre-Salmeron (“Izaguirre”) and her son, Oscar Jafeth Pineda-Izaguirre (“Oscar”) (collectively, “Petitioners”), both natives and citizens of Honduras, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision dismissing their appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We deny the petition. “Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we review both decisions.” De Leon v. Garland, 51 F.4th 992, 999 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). “We review the denial of asylum, withholding of removal and CAT claims for substantial evidence.” Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019). “Under this standard, we must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Id. 1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Petitioners are not eligible for asylum because they did not demonstrate harm rising to the 1 Izaguirre’s son, Oscar, is a derivative beneficiary of Izaguirre’s asylum application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.21. As there is no derivative status for withholding of removal and CAT protection, and Oscar did not file his own application, he is not eligible for those forms of relief. See Ali v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 780, 782 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005). 2 level of persecution or nexus to a protected ground. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (requirements for asylum eligibility). “Persecution is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society regards as offensive.” Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1028 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Mere threats, without more, do not necessarily compel a finding of past persecution.” Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2021). “Instead, we have been most likely to find persecution where threats are repeated, specific and combined with confrontation or other mistreatment.” Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1062 (9th Cir. 2021) (internal alteration, quotation marks, and citation omitted). Here, the Mara-18 gang approached Oscar on three separate occasions, telling him to join their …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals