UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-2134

D.M.; M.M.,

Petitioners,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: August 16, 2010 Decided: September 15, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville, 

Maryland, for Petitioners. Tony West, Assistant Attorney 

General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Todd J. Cochran, 

Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

The Petitioners, D.M. and M.M., natives and citizens 

of El Salvador, petition for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing their appeal from the 

immigration judge’s denial of their requests for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 

Against Torture.

The Petitioners first challenge the determination that 

they failed to establish eligibility for asylum. To obtain 

reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an 

alien “must show that the evidence [s]he presented was so 

compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the 

requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 

478, 483-84 (1992). Furthermore, “[t]he agency decision that an 

alien is not eligible for asylum is ‘conclusive unless 

manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.’” 

Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594, 600 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting 

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D) (2006)).

Based on our review of the record, we conclude that 

the Petitioners fail to demonstrate that the evidence in their 

case compels a contrary result. As found by the Board, the 

Petitioners have failed to show that they are at a greater risk 

of being victims of violent acts at the hands of criminal gangs 

than any other member of the general population in El Salvador. 
3

We have clearly held that a fear of general violence and unrest 

is inadequate to establish persecution on a protected ground. 

See Huaman-Cornelio v. Bd. of Immigration Appeals, 979 F.2d 995, 

1000 (4th Cir. 1992) (finding that eligibility for asylum does 

not extend to persons who fear general violence stemming from 

civil unrest); M.A. v. I.N.S., 899 F.2d 304, 315-16 (4th Cir. 

1990) (en banc) (finding that alien’s “own allegations make 

clear that his fear is grounded in nothing more than the 

generally violent conditions extant in El Salvador” and 

rejecting the notion that assertions of “general violence alone 

can satisfy the requirement of an individualized threat of 

persecution”) (superseded by statute on other grounds). We 

therefore find that substantial evidence supports the denial of 

relief.

Additionally, we uphold the denial of the Petitioners’ 

request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of

proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum —

even though the facts that must be proved are the same — an 

applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible 

for withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” 

Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because 

the Petitioners failed to show that they are eligible for 

asylum, they cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of 

removal.
4

We also conclude that substantial evidence supports 

the finding that the Petitioners failed to meet the standard for 

relief under the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such 

relief, an applicant must establish that “it is more likely than 

not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed 

country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2010). Based on 

our review, we agree that the Petitioners failed to demonstrate 

that they will more likely than not be tortured by or with the 

acquiescence of the government of El Salvador. See AmilcarOrellana v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 86, 92 (1st Cir. 2008) (upholding 

denial of Convention Against Torture claim based on gang 

violence in El Salvador and describing the government’s efforts 

to control gang activity).

Finally, the Petitioners challenge the immigration 

judge’s denial of their request for a second continuance. We 

review the denial of a motion for a continuance for abuse of 

discretion. Lendo v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 439, 441 (4th Cir. 

2007); Onyeme v. INS, 146 F.3d 227, 231 (4th Cir. 1998). The 

court “must uphold the IJ’s denial of a continuance ‘unless it 

was made without a rational explanation, it inexplicably 

departed from established policies, or it rested on an 

impermissible basis, e.g., invidious discrimination against a 

particular race or group.’” Lendo, 493 F.3d at 441 (quoting 

Onyeme, 146 F.3d at 231). 
5

The record reveals that the Petitioners requested a 

continuance on the ground that M.M. was unable to “withstand the 

rigors of examination” and attend the immigration hearing in 

light of her anxiety disorder. Based on counsel’s 

representation that M.M. would have presented the same testimony 

as D.M. (who did attend and testify at the hearing) and the fact 

that a lengthy continuance had already been granted, the 

immigration judge denied the motion for a continuance but 

granted the Petitioners’ request for a waiver of appearance by 

M.M. Because the immigration judge gave a rational explanation 

for his denial of a continuance and did not rest his decision on 

an impermissible basis, we find that no abuse of discretion 

occurred. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED