N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GLORIA YAM ILET SEVILLA-AM AYA; STEVEN ALIRIO M ELAR A -SEVILLA, Pe t i tione rs,
v. M ERR IC K B
. GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 17-72941 Age n c y Nos. A202-080-306

A202-080-307
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 June 5, 2020 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KOR M AN, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED APR 16 2021 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Edwa rd R . Korm an, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the E a s te rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.Gloria Se villa -Am ay a

(Se villa) and he r son, Ste v e n M e la r-Se villa (M e la r), 1 pe tition for re vie w of the de c ision of theB oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a ls (B oa

rd), dism issing the i r a

ppe a l of the de nia l of the ir a pplic ations for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a

nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Agai nst Torture(C AT). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd re vie w for substa

ntia l e vide nc e . S

e e Andrade -Garc i a v . Ly nc h , 828 F.3d 829, 833 (9th C ir. 2016), as ame nde d
. 1. B y not a ddre ssing theissue in he r ope ning brie f, Se villa wa ive d
re vie w of the B oa

rd’ s de te rm ination tha

t Se villa fa ile d to e sta

blish m e m

b e rship in
a pa rtic ula r soc ia l group a s one c e ntra l re a s on for a ny a l le ge d pe rse c ution. Se e Mu
v . Barr , 936 F.3d 929, 936 (9th C ir. 2019). Thus, her a sy lum and withholding of
re m ova l c la im s ne c e ssa

rily fa il. Se e Hu v . Holde r , 652 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th C ir. 2011) (re quiring a

de m onstra

tion of ne xus); se e also W ang v . Se ssions , 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th C ir. 2017) (re c ogniz ing tha t fa ilure to m e e t

the e ligibility
re quire m e nts for a sy lum

“ n e c e s sa rily ” doom s a

c la im for withholding of rem ova l). 2. Substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the finding tha

t Se villa fa ile d to
e sta blish e l igibility

for C AT re l ie f. Eve n a ssum ing Se villa suffe re d pa st torture , no

1 M e la

r is a de rivative be ne fic ia

ry of Se villa ’ s a sy l um

a pplic ation. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(3)(A). As no deriva tive sta t us e x ists for withholding of re m ova l a nd the C AT, a

n d M e la r fa ile d to file se pa

ra t e a pplic ations for suc h re lie f, he is not e ligiblefor those form s of re lie f. Se e Ali v . Ashc roft , 394 F.3d 780, 782 n.1 (9th C ir. 2005). 2e vide nc e in the re c ord de m onstra te d tha t she “ m o re like ly

tha n not” would suffe r torture if re turne d to El Sa lva dor. Garc ia-Milian v . Holde r , 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th C ir. 2014), as ame nde d . Se villa ’ s ge ne ra l a sse rtions a bout c rim e and
c orruption a

re not suffic ie nt to sustain a c la im of torture
. Se e De lgado-Ortiz v
. Holde r , 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th C ir. 2010). Furthe r, no e v ide nc e de m onstra te d tha t a public offic ia l would a c quie sc e to
any torture . The c rim e wa s re porte d to theprose c utor’ s offic e , a n d the re is no indic ations in the

re c ord of the gove rnm e nt’ s ina bility or unwillingne ss to inve stiga te . Se e Garc ia-Milian , 755 F.3d a t 1034. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

3