NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IRIS YESENIA MOREIRA-DE 

SANDOVAL; et al., 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-73135 

Agency Nos. A206-762-467 

A206-762-468 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. 

Iris Yesenia Moreira-De Sandoval and her minor son, natives and citizens of 

El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 

(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision 

denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 

* 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).

FILED

JAN 23 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-73135 

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 

U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual findings for substantial evidence. Conde 

Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny in part and 

dismiss in part the petition for review.

We do not disturb the determination that petitioners failed to establish they 

suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See Villegas Sanchez v.

Garland, 990 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2021) (threats “were not so overwhelming 

so as to necessarily constitute persecution” (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted)); Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Persecution ... 

is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our society 

regards as offensive.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also 

Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 633 n.2 (9th Cir. 2022) (court need not 

resolve whether de novo or substantial evidence review applies, where result 

would be the same under either standard). Substantial evidence supports the 

conclusion that petitioners failed to establish a reasonable possibility of future 

persecution. See Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (possibility of future persecution 

“too speculative”).

We do not address petitioners’ contentions as to nexus to a protected ground 

and the cognizability of their particular social group because the BIA did not deny 

relief on these grounds. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th 
3 17-73135 

Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds 

relied upon by that agency.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 

Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they failed to 

satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Villegas Sanchez, 990 F.3d at 

1183. Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT protection because 

petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tortured by or with 

the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See 

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

To the extent petitioners assert new claims related to perceived wealth, we 

lack jurisdiction to consider these issues. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 

677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented 

below). 

We do not consider the materials petitioners reference in their opening brief 

that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-

64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

The stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.