N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
EVA M A R IA DUR

A N-C ONR ADO, Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 17-73445 Age n c y No. A208-163-456
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 June 5, 2020 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KOR M AN, *** Distric t Judge
. Eva M aria Dura n -C onra d o, a

native and c i tiz e n of El Sa lva dor, pe titions for
re vie w of a

n orde r of the B oa

rd of Im m igrat ion Appe a ls (B IA) a ffirm ing the 

# FIL ED JUN 10 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Edwa rd R . Korm an, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.de c ision of a n im m igration judge(IJ) de ny ing he r c la im s for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd C AT re l ie f. 1 W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252 a nd de ny the p e tition. 1. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t Dura n-C onra do fa ile d to e sta

blish tha t she wa s or would bepe rse c ute d by ga ng m e m be rs be c a use she wa s a “ wom a n in El Sa lva dor.” 2 Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s
c onc lusion tha

t ga ng m e m b e rs did not just ta

rge t wom e n, but ra

the r ta rge te d all busine ss owne rs who the ga ng pe rc e ive d

ha d m one y , a

nd pe rse c ute d those who fa ile d to pa

y the ga ng’ s e xtortion mone y . Se eZe tino v . Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ An a lie n ’ s de sire to be fre e from ha ra ssm e nt by

c rim ina ls
m otiva t e d by the ft or ra

ndom viole nc e by ga

ng m e m b e rs be ars no ne xus to a prote c te d ground.” ). B e c a

use Dura n-C onra do points to no e

v ide nc e in the re c ord that would c om

pe l a c ontra

ry c onc lusion, s e eIN

S v . Elias-Zac arias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992), Dura

n-C onra do’ s a sy lum

and withholding of re

m ova l c la im s fa il. 2. Substa

ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t Dura n-C onra do is not e ligiblefor C AT re lie f. Se e Zhe ng v . Ashc roft , 332 F.3d 1186, 1193, 1195

1 Dura n-C onra d o ’ s da

ughte r is a

de rivative a

pplic ant. 2 The B IA a ssum e d tha

t Dura n-C onra do’ s propose d soc ia l group— “ wom e n of El Sa lva dor”

—

wa s c ogniz a

ble ; Dura n -C o nra do did not alle ge any othe r prote c te d ground a s a

ba sis for a sy lum
. 2(9th C ir. 2003). On this re c ord, she ha s not shown a c le ar proba

bility of torture if
re m ove d to El Sa lva dor by e ithe r gove rnm e nt offic ia ls or priva te a c t ors with gove rnm e nt a c q

uie s c e nc e . S

e eAndrade -Garc ia v . Ly nc h , 828 F.3d 829, 836 (9th C ir. 2016) (“ [A] ge n e ra l ine ffe c tive ne ss on thegove rnm e nt’ s pa rt to inve stiga

te
and pre ve nt c rim e will not suffic e to show a c q uie sc e nc e .” ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

3