Court Opinion

ID: 9365317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-23 19:00:34.716028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:42.417919
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JAN 23 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IRIS YESENIA MOREIRA-DE                         No.    17-73135
SANDOVAL; et al.,
                                                Agency Nos.       A206-762-467
                Petitioners,                                      A206-762-468

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

                Respondent.

                     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).
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

                                           2                                    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.

                                          3                                     17-73135