Court Opinion

ID: 9405486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 18:00:46.651999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:22.472842
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                              FILED
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
                                                                               JUN 28 2023
                                                                          MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                            U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
CLAUDIANE SANTOS DE                              No.   21-1319
JESUS and SARAH DERISSEAU
SANTOS                                           Agency Nos. A209-166-362
                                                             A209-166-363
              Petitioners,

 v.                                              MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

              Respondent.

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

                             Submitted June 26, 2023**
                                Seattle, Washington

Before: N.R. SMITH, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

      *
             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).
      Claudiane Santos De Jesus petitions for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ)

decision. The IJ denied her applications for asylum (on which her minor child is

listed as a beneficiary), withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and

deny the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Santos is not a

member of her proposed particular social group of “Brazilian single mothers who

resist Brazilian criminal gang demands” because Santos identifies no evidence that

she resisted the men who robbed her, and she conceded that she did not physically

react or say anything during the robberies. See Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987

F.3d 886, 890 (9th Cir. 2021). Likewise, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s

determination that the men who robbed Santos did not impute to her a political

opinion of resisting criminal gang demands because Santos presents no evidence of

the men’s political views or that they perceived her as holding that political

opinion. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031–33 (9th Cir. 2014).

Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Santos

failed to show that any past persecution was on account of a protected ground.

                                          2
Thus, she failed to establish eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal.1

See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B), 1231(b)(3)(A).

      Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Santos failed to

establish eligibility for CAT protection because Santos presents only generalized

country condition reports that do not show that she would be subject to torture

upon return to Brazil with the consent or acquiescence of the Brazilian

government. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010)

(per curiam). And because Santos did not report the robberies to the police, the

record does not compel a conclusion that the police would consent to or acquiesce

in any future harm to Santos. See Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924, 931 (9th Cir.

2010), overruled on other grounds by Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d

1051 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).

      PETITION DENIED.

      1
        Santos does not challenge the BIA’s conclusion that she failed to establish
“a well-founded fear of future persecution or a clear probability of harm based on a
protected ground,” and has thus abandoned a challenge to that determination. See
Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1080 (9th Cir. 2013).
                                          3