NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

INGRI YAMILETH CANAS-MELENDEZ; 

ASHLY MICHELL AGUILAR-CANAS, 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-73487 

Agency Nos. A202-078-835 

A202-078-834 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 5, 2020**

Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,***

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 Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for 

the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

FILED

JUN 19 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-73487 

Ingri Yamileth Canas-Melendez, a citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review 

of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal from 

an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

1 We have 

jurisdiction under section 242(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 

8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We review the BIA’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual 

findings for substantial evidence. Molina-Estrada v. I.N.S., 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th 

Cir. 2002); I.N.S. v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Where, as here, “the 

BIA’s analysis on the relevant issues is confined to a simple statement of a 

conclusion, we also look to the IJ’s oral decision as a guide to what lay behind the 

BIA’s conclusion.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted).

1. To establish eligibility for a discretionary grant of asylum, an alien must 

demonstrate that she has suffered past persecution or has “a well-founded fear of 

persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular 

social group, or political opinion.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42). Canas-Melendez claims

persecution as a member of the particular social group defined as “Salvadoran 

women unable to leave an abusive domestic relationship.” But even assuming that 

1 Canaz-Melendez’s daughter Ashly also applied for relief, but her application 

is derivative. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(3)(A).
3 17-73487 

her proposed group was cognizable under the INA, an issue which we do not resolve, 

substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Canas-Melendez failed to establish 

her membership in that putative social group because she failed to establish that she 

was unable to leave her abusive domestic relationship. 

The IJ acknowledged Canas-Melendez’s testimony that her partner,Jose, once 

threatened to harm her or her family if she tried to leave him. But the IJ noted that 

for three years, neither Canas-Melendez nor her parents asked him to leave or ever 

called the police or sought other assistance. The IJ noted that, when her parents 

finally did ask him to leave, “he apparently had no problems with leaving her or her 

family’s home.” The IJ found that this showed that “quite possibly had either she or 

her parents asked Jose to leave the house at any time, he would have done so.” 

Moreover, Canas-Melendez continued to live with her parents for another seven 

months and never was abused by—or even had personal contact with—Jose during 

that time. Indeed, the record supports the finding that Canas-Melendez had been out 

of her “abusive domestic relationship” for many months before her departure for the 

United States. 

2. Canas-Melendez’s failure to raise her CAT claim before the BIA 

constitutes a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, depriving this Court of 

jurisdiction to address this issue in her petition for review. E.g., Cordon-Garcia v. 

I.N.S., 204 F.3d 985, 988 (9th Cir. 2000). Even assuming Canas-Melendez had 
4 17-73487 

properly raised her CAT claim before the BIA, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s 

finding that Canas-Melendez had not shown “it is more likely than not that [she]

would be tortured if removed to” El Salvador. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). CanasMelendez’s past experiences do not amount to torture, which is an “extreme form of 

cruel and inhuman treatment and does not include lesser forms of cruel, inhuman or 

degrading treatment.” 8 C.F.R. 1208.18(a)(2). Moreover, Canas-Melendez has not 

alleged that Jose or anyone else would seek to torture her on her return to El 

Salvador. See Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam)

(petitioner must demonstrate a “particularized threat of torture”). Although CanasMelendez argues that the Salvadorian government has been generally ineffective in 

preventing violence against women, a government “does not acquiesce in the torture 

of its citizens merely because it is aware of torture but powerless to stop it.” GarciaMilian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1034 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).

PETITION DENIED.