Court Opinion

ID: 9899835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-17 19:01:50.925065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:51.440818
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                           NOV 17 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TERESA DE JESUS CHAVEZ-RIVAS;                   No. 22-1228
J.A.M.C.,                                       Agency Nos.
                                                A215-773-052
             Petitioners,                       A215-773-054

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                            Submitted November 15, 2023**
                                 San Jose, California

Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and GRABER and FRIEDLAND, Circuit
Judges.

      Petitioners Teresa de Jesus Chavez-Rivas and her minor son, natives and

citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the denial by the Board of

      *
             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).
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of their applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We

review questions of law de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence.1

Diaz-Reynoso v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1070, 1076 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition.

      Substantial evidence supports the determination by the immigration judge

(“IJ”) and BIA that Petitioners failed to establish either a well-founded fear of

future persecution or that they are more likely than not to be tortured if returned to

El Salvador. See Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028–29 (9th Cir.

2019) (stating standards). Chavez-Rivas stated that she and her son have never

been contacted, threatened, or physically harmed by gang members. Although

harm to family members can be relevant, here there is no evidence that the beating

of her partner was part of “a pattern of persecution closely tied” to Petitioners.

Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1062 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Wakkary v.

Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009)). Although Chavez-Rivas predicted

that gang members will harm Petitioners because of their family association with

her partner, the BIA reasonably concluded that these predictions were speculative.

See Bartolome v. Sessions, 904 F.3d 803, 814 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Speculation on

what could occur is not enough to establish a reasonable fear [of persecution].”);

      1
        We do not consider the materials Chavez-Rivas references that are not part
of the administrative record. See, e.g., Barrientos v. Lynch, 829 F.3d 1064, 1067
n.1 (9th Cir. 2016).

                                         2                                    22-1228
Park v. Garland, 72 F.4th 965, 980 (9th Cir. 2023) (“The record must show that it

is more likely than not that the petitioner will face a particularized and non-

speculative risk of torture.”). Petitioners argue that the IJ and BIA should have

considered the risk of harm by corrupt police and by those in El Salvador who

target women and deportees from the United States, but Chavez-Rivas does not

explain how her fear of mistreatment from those sources is any less speculative.

      The BIA appropriately rejected Petitioners’ political opinion claim on the

ground that it had not been raised before the IJ. Honcharov v. Barr, 924 F.3d

1293, 1297 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding the BIA “does not per se err when it concludes

that arguments raised for the first time on appeal do not have to be entertained”).

The BIA also did not err in rejecting the argument that the IJ failed to meaningfully

address the son’s claim; Petitioners made no arguments particular to him before the

IJ and nothing in the record indicated that he and Chavez-Rivas were differently

situated.

      Petition DENIED.

                                         3                                   22-1228