N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ELM ER HER NANDEZ-M AR TINEZ, Pe t i tione r, v. M ERR IC K B . GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-72803 Age n c y No. A072-398-348 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 Argue d a nd Subm itte d M a

y 18, 2022 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : KLEINFELD, M ILLER , a nd C OLLINS, C irc uit Judge s. Elm e r He rna

n d e z -M artine z argue s in his pe tition for re vie w tha t the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s (“ B IA” ) e rre d in a ffirm ing the Im m igration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision to deny

his a pplic at i ons for withholding of re m ova l pursua

nt to 8 U.S.C . § 

# FIL ED JUN 8 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 36-3.1231(b)(3)(A) a n d for prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252 a

nd de ny the pe tition.
Pe titione r argue s his proffe re d soc ia l groups a re le g a lly c o gniz a ble . 1 Howe ve r, he doe s not point to a ny e vide nc e in the re c ord indic at ing tha t Sa lva d oran soc ie ty

re c o gniz e s or pe rc e ive s e ithe r of his proffe re d soc ia l groups a s distinc t, c ogniz a

ble groups. As suc h, we c annot sa y tha t the re c o rd c o m

pe ls a c ontra ry c onc lusion to the

one the B IA re a c he d . Se e V ille gas Sanc he

z v . Garland

, 990 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th C ir. 2021). Nor doe s the re c ord c om p e l the c onc lusion that , c ontra

ry to the B IA’ s de te rm ination, the re wa s a ny ne xus c onne c ting Pe titione r’ s e xpe rie nc e with his propose d soc ia l groups. Fina lly , the B IA’ s de t e rm ination tha t Pe titione r wa s not e l igible for C AT re lie f is supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e . W e are not c om p e lle d to disa gre e with

1 Pe titione r propose d thre e soc ia l groups be fore the IJ but only pre s se d two on a ppe a l to the B IA. C o nse que ntly , his a tte m p t to re v ive the soc i a l group “ Sa lva dora

n m e n ha ving be e n ha

rm e d for disobe y i ng ga

n g’ s e xtortion a

n d/or re c ruitm e nt de m and” is fore c lose d for fa ilure to e x ha ust. S ola v . Holde r , 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th C ir. 2013) (pe r c uriam ). W e the re fore re vie w only his propose d soc i a l groups of “ a

Sa l va dora

n fam ily m e m be r of la ndowne r ta

rge te d by ga ng m e m b e rs for e xtortion”an d “pa rt of Sa lva d oran m e n tha

t polic e unla

wfully ta rge t a s suspe c te d ga

ng m e m be rs.” 2the B IA that one inc ide nt involving thre e blows to the stom a c h— le aving no

injury

— is not torture . Nor doe s Pe titione r’ s e vide nc e of c ountry c onditions c om pe l a c ontra ry re s ult. Although the

re c ord c onta ins e vide nc e sugge sting tha t unla wful viole nc e by polic e and ga ngs is a substa ntia l proble m

in El Sa lva d or, we c annot sa y that the a ge n c y

e rre d in c onc luding tha

t, on this re c ord, Pe t itione r ha d fa ile d to show tha

t he would besubje c te d to m istre at m e nt tha t rose to the le ve l of torture . As a

re sult, weare not c om

pe lle d to c o nc lude Pe titione r is m ore like ly tha n not to betorture d

if re turne d to El Sa lva dor. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2).
PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

3