NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MADELINE CECILIA ROMERO ALAS,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent. No. 22

- 280

Agency No.

A206

- 679

- 39 3

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 14, 2023 **

San Francisco, California

Before: S

. R

. T H O M A S

, B E A

, an d B E N N E T T

, C i r c u i t J u d g e s

.

Petitioner M a d e l i n e Cecilia Romero Alas is a native and cit i zen of El

Salvador. S h e p etitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”) order dismissing h e r a p p e a l f r o m t h e I m m i g r a t i o n J u d g e ’ s ( “ I J ” ) o r d e r

d e n y i n g h e r applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

under the Co nventi o n Against Torture ( “ CA T ” ). We have jurisdiction under 8

* This disposition is not appro priate for publicat ion and is not

precedent excep t as provided b y Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for deci sio n

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a )( 2). 

# FILED

JUL 18 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 22

- 280 U.S.C. § 1252 , and we review f a c t u a l f i n d i n g s b y t h e B I A o r I J for substantial

evidence

. Plancarte Sauceda v. Garland , 23 F.4th 824, 831 (9th Cir. 2022)

.

We d eny the pet i tion for revie w

.

A s t o t h e w i t h h o l d i n g c l a i m

, s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e f i n d i n g

t h a t P e t i t i o n e r h a s n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d a n e x u s b e t w e e n h e r p a s t p e r s e c u t i o n a n d

a n y p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l g r o u p

. 1 E v e n a s s u m i n g o n e o f P e t i t i o n e r ’ s p r o p o s e d

p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l g r o u p s i s c o g n i z a b l e

, s e e Rios v. Lynch , 807 F.3d 1123, 1128

(9th Cir. 2015) ( n o t i n g t h a t “the family remains the quint es sential particular

social gr oup ” ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ) )

, t h e r e c o r d d o e s n o t s h o w t h a t P e t i t i o n e r ’ s

m e m b e r s h i p i n s u c h a g r o u p w a s “ a r e a s o n ” f o r h e r p e r s e c u t i o n

, s e e Barajas

Romero v. Lynch , 846 F.3d 351, 358

– 6 0 (9th Cir. 2017) (ex plaining that the

withholding statute uses only “a reason” in co ntrast to the asylum statut e

, which

u s e s “one central reason ”)

. 2 P e t i t i o n e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e b e l i e v e s t h e g a n g

t a r g e t e d h e r f o r e x t o r t i o n “[b]ecause they knew that [she] worked ” an d b e c a u s e

h e r c o m m u t e g a v e h e r a p r e d i c t a b l e s c h e d u l e

. A n d a l t h o u g h P e t i t i o n e r ’ s u n c l e

1 Although “ p ast p ersecution triggers a rebuttable presump tion of a well

founded fear of future perse c u tion

, ” Garcia

- Martinez v. As hcr oft , 371 F.3d

1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omit ted)

, P etiti oner has also not

demonst rated a nexus to a pro tect ed category in the context of a well

- founde d

fear of future pe rsecution

. See Sanjaa v. Sess ions , 863 F.3 d 1161, 1164

– 65 (9th

Cir. 2017) ( denyin g relief where petitioner had demonstrated past persecut ion

but not a nexus to a particula r social g roup or to p olitical opinion )

.

2 As P etitioner has no t met the more len i ent nexus standard for withhol ding of

re mov a l , she necessarily has not met t he stricter nexus standar d for as ylum : that

membership in any pa rticular social group was “at least one central re ason for”

her persecution. 8 U .S.C. § 1158(b)( 1)(B)(i)

.3 22

- 280 w a s m u r d e r e d b y g an g m e m b e r s

, t h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e c o n n e c t i n g t h i s m u r d e r t o

t h e g a n g ’ s e x t o r t i o n o f P e t i t i o n e r

. A s t h e I J i d e n t i f i e d

, P e t i t i o n e r ’ s e x t o r t i o n

w a s “ a t t e n u a t e d b y b o t h t i m e a n d s p a c e t o [ t h e ] m u r d e r

, w h i c h i s s t r o n g

c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e y a r e u n r e l a ted. ” Se e Deloso v. Ashcrof t , 393

F.3d 85 8, 865

– 66 (9th Cir. 2005) ( a s s e s s i n g c i r c u m s t an t i a l e v i d e n c e o f

p e r s e c u t o r ’ s m o t i v e s )

.

P e t i t i o n e r h a s a l s o n o t establish e d eligibility for relief under CAT. The

record evidence does not compel the conclusion tha t it is m ore likely than not

that s h e woul d suffer harm risin g to the lev el of torture b y government officials

or private actors w ith government acquies cence if s h e w e r e returned to E l

S a l v a d o r

. T h e h a r m P e t i t i o n e r e x p e r i e n c e d w h e n t h r e a t e n e d b y g a n g m e m b e r s

d i d n o t r i s e to the l e v e l o f t o r t u r e

, an d s h e h a s n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d a l i k e l i h o o d o f

f

u t u r e t o r t u r e

. Davila v. Barr , 968 F.3d 1136, 1144 (9th C ir. 2020) (“Torture is

‘more severe tha n persecution.’” (citation omitted ) ) ; 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1)

( defini ng torture )

.

F i n a l l y

, P e t i t i o n e r ’ s c l a i m t h a t IJ did not hav e subject matte r jurisdicti o n

because h e r Notice to Appear lacked the time and place of p r oceedings is

u n e x h a u s t e d

, and the government has properly raised that it is unexhausted

. S ee

S

antos

- Zacaria v. Garland , 143 S. Ct. 1103, 1110 (2023) (holding the

exhaustion requirement is a no n

- jurisdictional claim

- processing rule); Fort Bend

County v. Davis , 139 S. Ct. 1843, 1849 (2019) (explaining that a court must

enforce a claims

- processing rule “if a party ‘properly raise[s]’ it” (alteration in4 22

- 280 original) (citation omitted)). A n d e v e n h a d P e t i t i o n e r r a i s e d h e r c l a i m t o t h e

B I A

, t h e c l a i m i s foreclosed by United States v. Bastide

- Hernan dez , 3 9 F.4th

1187

, 1 1 9 1

– 9 2 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc)

.

DENI ED

.