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

AM IR EZ ESC OB AR , Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 18-72923 Age n c y No. A216-268-398
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 M arc h 26, 2020 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E , GR AB ER , a nd C OLLINS, C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r Je ssic a

R am ire z Esc oba

r, a nat ive and c itiz e n

of El Sa lva dor, tim e ly pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (" B IA" ) fina l orde r de ny ing re l ie f. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we de ny

the pe tition in pa

rt a nd dismiss it in pa

rt. 

# FIL ED APR 6 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).1. The disc u ssion in the body of Pe t itione r’ s brie f m e ntions he r c l a im for prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Against Torturebut c onta ins no supporting
argum e nt to e xpla in why

the a g e nc y ’ s re

je c t ion of tha

t c la im wa s e rrone o us. Ac c ordingly , Pe titione r ha s wa i ve d or forfe i te d a ny argum e nts c onc e rning the de nia l of tha

t c l a im
. Da e woo Ele c s. Am
. Inc . v. Opta C orp., 875 F.3d 1241, 1247 n.6 (9th C ir. 2017); M artine z -Se rrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th C ir. 1996). 2. W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r Pe titione r’ s propose d soc ia l group of

" Sa lva d oran wom e n," be c a use Pe titione r did not pre se nt tha t group to e ithe r the im m igration judgeor the B IA. In he r brie fing a n d te stim ony , Pe titione r propose d only the soc ia l groups of " Sa lva dora n wom e n who re fuse ga

ng re c ruitm e nt" and Pe titione r’ s fam ily

unit. In re sponse to a

que stion from

the im m igrat ion judge , Pe titione r te stifie d tha

t the re we re no othe r soc ia l groups tha t she be lie ve d a

pplie d in this c a se . W e the re fore la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r the group propose d on
a ppe a l. Honc ha

rov v. B arr, 924 F.3d 1293, 1296 n.2 (9th C ir. 2019) (pe r c uriam ). 3. As to the

Pe titione r’ s a sy lum

c la im , substa

ntia l e v ide nc e supports the B IA’ s c onc lusion tha

t t he loc a l ga

ng’ s a c tions towa

rd Pe t itione r we re not on
a c c ount of Pe titione r’ s m e m be rship in a

prote c t e d group, be c a

use the y we re
m otiva t e d by " the fina nc i a l ga in of e xtortion, a

nd not a ny anim us a ga inst [Pe titione r’ s] fam ily ." Pe t itione r c onsiste ntly te stifie d tha

t she and he r fam ily

we re
2ta

rge te d by the loc a l ga

ng a s a re sult of the ga

ng’ s e fforts to e xtort thefam ily
. Although unfortuna

te , Pe titione r’ s situa

t ion wa s not unique

in El Sa lva dor. Pe titione r te stifie d tha

t he r fam ily

m e m be rs we re " not the only

one s" and tha

t the ga ngs " a ske d a

lot of othe rs for the sa

m e ." M ore ove r, Pe titione r’ s doc um e nta ry
e vide nc e sta

te s tha t " busine sse s a

nd priva te c itiz e ns a

re subje c t to e xtortion by orga niz e d c rim ina l groups on a re gula r ba sis." " An a lie n’ s de sire to be fre e from ha ra ssm e nt by

c rim i na l s . . . or ra

ndom viole nc e by

ga n g m e m b e rs be ars no ne xus to a prote c te d

ground." Ze tino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C ir. 2010). 4. The B IA prope rly

c onc lude d tha

t, give n the la c k of a

ny ne xus to a prote c te d ground, Pe titione r like wise fa i le d to show tha t she wa s e ligiblefor withholding of rem o v a l. Se e B ara ja s-R om e ro v. Ly

n c h, 846 F.3d 351, 359-60 (9th C ir. 2017) (holding tha

t withholding of re

m ova l re quire s a showing tha t a prote c te d ground would be

" a re a son" why

the a pplic ant’ s life or fre e dom would be thre ate ne d). 5. W e ne e d not a

n d do not re a c h

Pe titione r’ s othe r argum e n ts. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D IN PART and DISM ISSE D IN PART .

3