N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
ALB A NOEM I TOB AR -DE ESTEB A N; e t a l., Pe t i tione rs,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 18-71020 Age n c y Nos. A208-565-022

A208-565-023 A208-565-024 A208-565-025
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 Fe brua

ry 8, 2022 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WARDLAW , IKUTA, a nd B ADE, C irc uit Judge s. Alba Noe m i Toba

r-De Este ba

n se e ks re vie w of a

de c ision of theB oa

rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s (B IA) a ffirm ing the de c ision of a n im m igration judge(IJ) de ny ing he r c la im s for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a n d re lie f unde r the 

# FIL ED

FEB 11 2022 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C AT). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252.

B e c a use the B IA a dopte d a

nd a ffirm e d the de c ision of theIJ without opinion, we
re vie w the de c ision of theIJ a s if it we re the B IA’ s . K w o ng v . Holde r , 671 F.3d 872, 876 (9th C ir. 2011). W e uphold thea ge nc y ’ s de nia l of Toba r-De Este ba

n’ s c la im for a s y lum unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1158(b). Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the a g e nc y ’ s de te rm i nation tha

t Toba r-De Este ba

n did not suffe r pa st m i stre at m e nt rising to the le ve l of pe rse c ution. Unde r our pre c e de nt, the m istre at m e nt she ide ntifie d

— tha t thre e arm e d

ga ng m e m be rs c onfronte d he r m inor son, de m an de d m one y , and thre ate ne d to kill his fa

m ily if he re porte d the e nc ounte r; that she re c e ive d a note de m anding $300 (which she pa id), a nd tha t he r c ar wa s va

nda liz e d

— doe s not
c om pe l the c onc lusion tha

t she suffe re d pe rse c ution. Se e , e .g. , Lim v . IN

S , 224 F.3d 929, 932–33, 936 (9th C ir. 2000) (holding tha t a pe titione r did not suffe r pe rse c ution whe n he a

ppe are d on a n orga niz ation’ s “ de ath list”and re c e ive d
m ultiplede ath thre ats); Prasad v . IN S , 47 F.3d 336, 339–40 (9th C i r. 1995) (holding tha

t the re c ord did not c om

pe l the c onc lusion tha

t a pe titione r suffe re d pa st pe rse c ution whe n a ssa ila nts thre w roc ks a

t his house , atte m

pte d to ste a l his prope rty , de t a ine d him

at gunpoint, he ld him

in a polic e sta

tion ja il c e ll for four to six hours, a

nd be at him). B e c a

use Toba r-De Este ba

n did not te s tify

tha t the ga ng
2thre ate ne d or c onfronte d he r in a ny wa y a fte r she pa id the ga

ng’ s de m and, she did not fle e “ in the fa c e of a

n im m e diate thre at.” Se e Me ndoza-Pablo v . Holde r , 667 F.3d 1308, 1314 (9th C ir. 2012). W e re je c t Toba r-De Este ba

n’ s c onte ntion tha

t the IJ wa s re quire d to a

ttribute the m istre at

m e nt of Toba

r-De Este ba

n’ s fam ily

m e m be rs to he r for purpose s of he r
c la im of pa st pe rse c ution. “ [A] lthough ha rm to a pe titione r’ s c lose re lative s, frie nds, or a ssoc iate s m ay c ontributeto a

suc c e ssful showing of pa s t pe rse c ution,”
a pe t itione r m

ust show tha

t the se e ve nts “ we re pa

rt of a patte rn of pe rse c ution
c lose ly tie d to [the pe titione r] .” W ak k ary v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th C ir. 2009) (c ita

tion omitte d). The IJ’ s de te rm ination tha t the inc i de nts involving Toba r-De Este ba

n’ s fam ily

m e m be rs we re m otiva

te d by the ga ng’ s e sta blishe d
m odus ope randi of e xtorting a ny one who m ight be a

ble to pa y , without re ga

rd for the i r c o nne c tion to Toba

r-De Este ba

n, wa s supporte d by

substa ntia l e v ide nc e . 1 Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the IJ’ s de te rm ination tha

t Toba r-De Este ba n did not e sta

blish a we ll-founde d fe ar of pe rse c ution be c a use she fa ile d to

1 B e c a use the IJ ba se d its de te rm ination tha t Toba r-De Este ba

n did not e sta blish pa st pe rse c ution on the ground tha

t he r pa st m i stre atm e n t did not rise to the l e ve l of pe rse c ution, wedo not a ddre ss he r argum e nts tha t he r propose d soc ia l groups a re le gitim ate , tha

t she is a m e m be r of those groups, or tha t she wa s pe rse c ute d on a c c o unt of a n im pute d politic a l opinion, c onc e rning he r c la im for a sy lum
. 3show tha

t she would suffe r pe rse c ution “ on a c c ount of” he r m e m b e rship in a

ny prote c te d group. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1101(a )(42); Ze tino v
. Holde r , 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th C ir. 2010). Toba r-De Este ba

n te stifie d tha

t m any of he r ne ighbors a lso
re c e ive d e xtortion de m a

nds, a nd the le tte rs to he r fa the r and brothe r spe c ifie d tha t the g ang wa s a sking e v e ry one in the ne ighborhood for mone y . A “ de sire to be fre e from ha ra ssm e n t by

c rim ina ls m otiva

te d by the ft or ra

ndom viole nc e by

ga ng
m e m b e rs be ars no ne x us to a

prote c te d ground.” Ze tino , 622 F.3d a t 1016. W e re je c t Toba r-De Este ba

n’ s a rgum e n t tha

t she de m o n strat e d a

c ha nge in
c ountry c onditions in El Sa

lva dor tha t inc re a se d he r risk of pe rse c ution if she
re turns. As the

IJ e xp la ine d, while c ountry c ondition re

ports indic ate tha

t El Sa lva d or is pa

rtic ula rly da nge rous for wom e n, Toba r-De Este b a

n ha s not de m onstra

te d tha t she would fa c e anyt

hing othe r tha

n fina nc ia lly m otiva te d
c rim ina l c onduc t. W e a lso re je c t Toba r-De Este ba

n’ s c onte n tion tha

t the IJ im prope rly m a de an a dve rse c re dibility de t e rm i nation re g arding he r te stim ony . The IJ sta te d tha t he gave Toba

r-De Este ba

n’ s te stim ony

full e v ide ntia

ry we ight,
and the de c ision re fle c ts tha t he c onside re d he r c la i m s a c c o rdingly
. W e uphold thea ge nc y ’ s de nia l of Toba r-De Este ba

n’ s c la im for withholding of re m ova l unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)(3). Substa n tia l e vide nc e supports the IJ’ s de te rm i nation tha

t Toba r-De Este ba

n did not de m onstra

te tha t a ny prote c t e d
4ground would be “ a re a son” for any

m istre atm e nt she m i ght suffe r in El Sa lva dor. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)(3)(C ); Barajas-Rome ro v . Ly nc h , 846 F.3d 351, 358 (9th C ir. 2017). As e xpla ine d a bove , the re c ord supporte d the IJ’ s de te rm ination tha t the g ang e xtorts thege ne ra l popula tion a nd doe s not ta

rge t Toba r-De Este ba

n’ s propose d soc i a l groups. 2 W e uphold thea ge nc y ’ s de nia l of Toba r-De Este ba

n’ s c la im for re lie f unde r the C AT. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 208.16(c )(2); Al-Sahe r v . IN S , 268 F.3d 1143, 1146–47 (9th C ir. 2001) (a s a

m e nde d). The IJ’ s de t e rm i nation tha t Toba r-De Este ba

n did not e sta blish pa st torture wa s supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Se e 8 C .F.R
. § 208.16(c )(3)(i)

. “ [T] orture is m ore se ve re tha n pe rse c ution,” N

uru v . Gonzale

s , 404 F.3d 1207, 1224 (9th C ir. 2005), a nd a s e xpla ine d a

bove , substa

n tia l e vide nc e supporte d the IJ’ s finding tha t Toba r-De Este ba

n did not suffe r m istre atm e nt rising to the le v e l of pe rse c ution. TheIJ’ s de t e rm i nation tha t Toba r-De Este ba

n did not
e sta blish a like lihood of future torture “ inflic te d by or at the instiga

t ion of or with the c onse nt or a c quie sc e n c e of a public offic ia l or othe r pe rson a c ting in a n offic ia l
c a pa c ity ” wa s supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Se e 8 C .F.R . § 208.18(a)(1);

2 B e c a use the IJ de nie d Toba

r-De Este ba

n’ s withholding of re

m ova l c la im on the ground tha

t she did not e sta

blish there q

u isite ne xus be twe e n a

ny m istre at m e nt she m ight fa c e and a ny prote c te d ground, we do not a ddre ss he r argum e nts tha

t he r propose d soc ia l groups a re le gitim ate or tha

t she is a m e m be r of those groups c o n c e rning he r c la im for withholding of rem ova l. 5Zhe ng v . Ashc roft , 332 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th C ir. 2003). W hile the polic e took no furthe r a c tions a fte r re s ponding to Toba r-De Este ba

n’ s c a ll, Toba

r-De Este b an
a c knowle dge d tha

t the re wa s no e vide nc e a s to the ide ntity of the pe rsons who
va nda liz e d he r c ar, and she pre se nte d no e v ide nc e tha t the polic e we re involve d with thega

ng. The re fore , the re c o rd supporte d the IJ’ s de t e rm ination tha t the Sa lva d oran gove rnm e nt would not be c o m plic it in a ny future torture a ga inst TobarDe Este ba

n. Se e De l C

id Marroquin v. Ly nc h , 823 F.3d 933, 937 (9th C ir. 2016) (a ffirm ing de nia l of pe t itione r’ s C AT c la im be c a use “ Sa lva d oran la

w prohibits
e xtra judic ia l killings a

nd viole n c e , a

nd the re is substa

ntia l e v ide nc e tha

t the gove rnm e nt e nforc e s those la w s— a lbe it im

pe rfe c tly

— a ga inst both ga

ng m e m be rs
and rogue polic e offic e rs” ). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

6