NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CRISTINA BEATRIZ HENRIQUEZ

LEMUS; ASHLYN GISEL LOPEZ

HENRIQUEZ,

Petitioners,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 22

- 436

Agency Nos.

A209

- 429

- 186

A209

- 429

- 187

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 8 , 2023 ** Pasadena, California

Before: M. SMITH and DESAI, Circuit Judges, and AMON, District Judge

. ** *

Petitioner C h r i s t i n a B e a t r i z H e n r i q u e z

- L e m u s , o n b e h a l f o f h e r s e l f a n d

h e r m i n o r c h i l d A s h l y n G i s e l L o p e z

- H e n r i q u e z , challenges t he Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of h e r appeal from the Immigration

* This dispo sition is not appropria te for pu blication and is not

pre cedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously conc ludes t h is case is suitable for decision
wit hout oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable C arol Bagley Amon

, Unite d States District Judge

for the E astern District of New York , sitting by designation. 

# FILED

JUN 15 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 Judge’s (IJ) denial of h e r application for asylum, withholding of removal , and

protection pursuant to the Convention Against Torture ( C A T )

. We have

jurisdiction p u r s u an t t o 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.

B e c a u s e t he parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them

here e x c e p t a s n e c e s s a ry t o p r o v i d e c o n t e x t

. We review legal questions de n ovo

and factual determinations for substantial evidence. Ixcot v. Holder , 646 F.3d

1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 2011)

. Because the BIA affirm ed the decision of th e IJ and

incorporate d porti ons of the IJ’s decision, “we treat the incorporated parts o f the

IJ’s decisio n as the BIA’s.” Mai e v. Garland , 7 F.4th 841, 84 5 (9th Cir. 2021)

( quotation omitted)

.

1

. P e t i t i o n e r h a s n o t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t h e r p a s t m i s t r e a t m e n t i n E l S a l v a d o r

r i s e s t o t h e l e v e l o f p e r s e c u t i o n

. 1 A l t h o u g h s h e w a s t h r e a t e n e d i n d i r e c t l y b y

g a n g m e m b e r s , s h e was never physical ly harmed or even confronted by the

gang

. S ee Lim v. INS

, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir. 2000) ( s t a t i n g t h a t t h r e a t s

a l o n e “ c o n s t i t u t e p a s t persecu tion in only a small category of cases

. . . when the

threats are so menacing as to cause significant actual suffering or harm.” )

( q u o t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) ; Sharma v. Garland , 9 F.4th 1052, 1061

– 6 3 (9th Cir. 2021)

( n o t i n g t h a t whether the alien was subjec t to ph ysical violenc e i s o f t e n a

s i g n i f i c a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n a s s e s s i n g p e r s e c u t i o n ( c i t i n g Nagoulko v. INS , 333

1 In reviewing the agency’s de termina t ion that Petitio ner ’ s mistreatment d id not rise to the level of persecution, we need not decide whether we review for
substantial e vidence o r de novo, because the s tandard of review does not make a

difference in this case

. See Fon v. Garland , 34 F .4th 81 0

, 813 n.1 (9th Cir.

2 022)

.3 F.3d 1012, 1016

– 17 ( 9th Cir . 2003) )

. Substantial ev idence supports the B I A ’ s

finding that Petit ioner has not o t h e r w i s e e s t a b l i s h e d a w e l l

- f o u n d e d f e a r o f

f

u t u r e persecution

. See Duran

- Rodriguez v. Barr , 918 F.3d 1025, 1029 (9th Cir.

2 019) ( explaining t h a t a n applicant who can safely and reasonably relocate

within h e r nativ e coun try does n ot have a well

- founded fear of future

persecution )

. A c c o r d i n g l y , h e r a s y l u m c l a i m f a i l s

. S e e 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(42)(A)

.

2

. Be cause P e t i t i o n e r failed to meet the lower burden of proof for asylum,

h e r claim for withholding o f remov al necessarily fails. S ee Zehatye v.

Gonzales , 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

3

. F i n a l l y , s ubstantial evide n ce supports the denial of C A T relief

. P e t i t i o n e r

h a s n o t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t she will more likely than not be tortured b y o r with the

c onsent or acquiescence of t h e g o v e r n m e n t if removed to E l S a l v a d o r

. S e e

Xochihua

- Jaimes v. Barr , 96 2 F.3d 1175, 118 3 (9th Cir. 2020)

.

The stay of removal r emains in place until the mandate issues.

P E T I T I O N D E N I E D

.