N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
DAYSI LETIC IA DOM INGUEZ DE LUC ANO; DANIEL ANTONIO LUC ANO DOM INGUEZ,

Pe t i tione rs,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-72644 Age n c y Nos. A200-571-823 A200-571-824
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 13, 2018 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TASHIM A , R AW LINSON, a

nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s . 

# FIL ED
OCT 02 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. S

e e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2)(C ).Day si Le tic ia Dom ingue z de Luc ano, 1 a native and c itiz e n of El Sa lva dor, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) de c ision dism issing he r a

p p e a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c i sion de ny ing he r
a pplic a tions for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie wfor substa

ntia l e vide nc e , se e Ze tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th C ir. 2010), a

nd we de ny the pe tition for re v i e w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de nia l of a sy lum and withholding of
re m ova l be c a

use pe titione r fa ile d to show she wa s pe rse c ute d on a c c ount of a prote c te d ground. First, although pe titione r wa s thre at e ne d with e xtortion a

nd viole nc e by

ga ngs, it wa s not on a c c ount of he r m e m be rship in a

pa rtic u la r soc ia l group. Ge ne ra liz e d viole nc e c annot support a n a sy l um c la im on the ba sis of a prote c te d ground, se e Ze tino , 622 F.3d a t 1016, a nd the B IA prope rly

re je c te d the possible soc ia l groups of “we a lthy Sa lva dora ns” or “ re turne e s” from

the Unite d Stat e s to El Sa lva dor. Se e R e y e s v . Ly nc h , 842 F.3d 1125, 1138-40 (9th C i r. 2016) (re je c t ing “ de porte e s from

the Unite d State s to El Sa lva dor” a s a pa rtic u la r soc ia l group); Ramire

z-Munoz v . Ly nc h , 816 F.3d 1226, 1229 (9th C ir. 2016) (re je c ting

1 Pe titione r’ s son, Da nie l Antonio Luc ano Dom ingue z , is liste d a s a de rivative be ne fic ia

ry on he r a sy lum a

pplic at ion. 2pe rc e ive d we a l th a s a soc ia l group). Se c o nd, to thee xte n t tha t pe titione r a lle ge s she
wa s pe rse c ute d by

he r husba

nd on a c c ount of he r status a s a m arrie d wom an una

ble to le ave he r re lationship, substa ntia l e vide nc e supporte d the B IA’ s de c ision to dism iss, a s pe titione r ha s be e n se pa ra te d from

he r husba

nd sinc e 2008— at le a st thre e y e ars be fore she c am e to the Unite d Stat e s se e king a sy lum
. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t pe titione r fa ile d to de m onstra

te a c le ar proba

bility she will be torture d by

the gove rnm e nt or with the g ove rnm e nt’ s a c quie sc e nc e if re turne d to El Sa lva dor. Se e W a k k a ry v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1067–68 (9th C ir. 2009). Ac c ordingly , pe titione r’ s a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd C A T c la im s fa il. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W DE NIE D.

3