NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ESMERALDA MARTINEZ LEMOS; et al.,

Petitioners,

v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 72857 Agency Nos. A206

- 372

- 167

A206

- 372

- 166 A206

- 372

- 168 A206

- 372

- 169 A206

- 372

- 170 A206

- 372

- 171

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 10, 2020 * * Seattle, Washington Before: CLIFTON, D.M. FISHER, ** * and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners Esmeralda Martinez Lemos and her five children seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeal s ’ (BIA) den ial of their applications for asylum,

* 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 D. Michael Fisher, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by d esignation. 

# FILED

JUL 14 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 72857

withholding of removal, and protection under the Conve ntion Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We deny the petition.
Petitioners argue that the agency violated their right to due process because
the Immigration Judge ( IJ ) and BIA used the phrase “anti

- gang political o pinion ,” while their political opinion is actually one of “ neutral ity ” in the feud between the Knights Templar and the Self

- Defense Groups. The BIA violates due process if “(1) the proceeding was so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from

re asonably presenting h [er] case, and (2) the alien demonstrates prejudice, which means that the outcome of the proceeding may have been affected by the alleged
violation.” Vilchez v. Holder , 682 F.3d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting

Lacsina Pangilinan v. Holder , 568 F.3d 708, 709 (9th Cir. 2009)). Petitioners were not prevented from reasonably presenting their case. T he IJ directly considered the political neutrality argument , saying , “I saw your [neutrality] arguments, they’re here. But . . . what [Petitioners] believed in politically, . . . is just completely unrelated to anything.” The IJ further stated that he was “trying to probe if there were some other issues involved.” Having found

none, he concluded th ere was no evidence suggesting that the Knights Templar were motivated by Petitioners’ “anti

- gang” beliefs. The BIA affirmed on the same3 18

- 72857

basis. R egardless of terminology, the agency did not prevent Petitioners from reasonably presenting their argument.
E ve n if Petitioners were prevented from reasonably presenting their case, they have not demonstrate d prejudice

. A n asylum seeker claiming past or future persecution on account of a political opinion must establish, among other things, that her persecutors kno w of her political opinion (or impute it to her) and that her political opinion causes the persecution. Sangha v. INS , 103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir. 1997). No evidence suggest s that the Knights Templar knew of Madrigal’s political opinion and acted on acco unt of it when they demanded money and kidnapped him . Contrary to Petitioners’ assertion, Gonzales

- Neyra v. INS , 122 F.3d 1293 (9th Cir. 1997), does not support their claim. In that case, the applicant

“ expressed [his political opinion] to his persecutors , and

. . . they threatened him only [afterwards] .” Id. at 1296. Evidence that Petitioners and Madrigal were not involved with, refused to help, or were afraid of both groups , does not suffice to demonstrate that the Knights Templar knew of and acted on ac count of their neutral political opinion.
Petitioners confuse the law regarding their family member ship claim

. They
needed to show that the Knights Templar targeted them on account of their famil ial
relation ship with Madrigal , Rios v. Lynch , 807 F.3d 1123, 1128 (9th Cir. 2015) , a4 18

- 72857

ground of persecution distinct from whether the Knights Templar target ed Madrigal on account of his political opinion. H owever, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the Knights Templar shouted threats at
Petit ioners to get on the ground only because they were bystanders to the kidnapping, and that the Knights Templar kidnapped Madrigal only to extort Madrigal himself, not to persecute his family. Finally, the BIA and IJ adequately evaluated Petitioners’ CAT claim . The BIA agreed with the IJ’s two

- paragraph analysis, concluding that Petitioners did not show they were more likely than not to be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a government official. Petitioners point to no record evidence that would comp el a different finding.
PETITION DENIED
.