N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M IR NA YANIR

AESC AM ILLA, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 11-72698 Age n c y No. A074-424-107 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 De c e m

be r 17, 2013 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, WALLAC E, a nd GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s. M irna Ya nira Esc am illa , a

native and c i tiz e n of El Sa lva dor, pe titions for re vie w of a

B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r dismissing he r a ppe a l from an im m igration judge ’ s de c ision de ny ing he r a pplic ation for a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Against Torture



# FIL ED D EC 19 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 9th C ir. R . 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).(“ C AT” ). Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for substa ntia l e vide nc e the a ge nc y ’ s fa c tua l findings. W ak k ary v . Holde r , 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th C ir. 2009). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s finding tha

t Esc am illa ’ s e xpe rie nc e s in El Sa l va dor did not rise to the le ve l of pa st pe rse c ution. Se eid. at 1059 (“ Pe rse c ution is a

n e xtre m e c o nc e pt tha

t doe s not inc lude e v e ry

sort of tre at

m e nt our soc i e ty

re ga rds a s offe nsive .” ) (inte rna l quota tion m a rks a nd c ita tion omitte d); Lim v . IN S , 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th C ir. 2000) (unfulfille d thre ats, without m ore , ge ne ra lly do not c onstitute

pa st pe rse c ution). Substa ntia l e vide nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s de te rm i nation tha t Esc am illa ’ s ge ne ra l fe ar of viole n c e in El Sa lva dor is insuffic ie nt to e sta

blish a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution. Se eSingh v . IN S , 134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th C i r. 1998) (“ [T] o e sta blish a we ll-founde d fe a

r, pe titione r c annot sim

ply prove tha t the re e xists a

ge ne ra liz e d or ra

ndom possibility of pe rse c ution[;] she m

ust show tha

t she is a t pa rtic ula r risk[.] ” ) (inte rna l quota

tion m arks, a lte rations, a

nd c i tation omitte d). W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r both Esc am illa ’ s c onte ntion tha t she e sta blishe d a ne xus ba se d on union a c tivitie s at he r work, a nd he r c onte ntion tha

t she will ta

rge te d ba se d on he r Am e ric a n iz e d

1 1 - 7 2 6 9 8 2a

ppe aranc e , be c a

use she did not e xha

ust the m . Se eBarron v . Ashc roft , 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th C ir. 2004). C onse que ntly , he r a sy l um c la i m fa ils. B e c a use Esc am illa

fa ile d to e sta

blish e ligibility

for a sy lum , she ne c e s sa

rily fa ile d to m e e t the highe r burde n of proof for withholding of re m ova l . Se eZe haty e v . Gonzale

s , 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th C ir. 2006). Fina lly , substa

ntia l e v ide nc e supports the B IA’ s de nia l of C AT prote c tion be c a use Esc am illa

fa ile d to de m onstra

te it is m ore like ly

tha n not shewould be torture d by

or with thec onse nt or a c q uie s c e n c e of a

public offic ia l in El Sa lva dor. Se e Silay a v . Muk

ase y , 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th C ir. 2008). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 1 - 7 2 6 9 8 3