Court Opinion

ID: 9389100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-24 17:01:02.704514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:24.356460
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         APR 24 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICTORIA ORBELINA ALVAREZ                       No. 21-547
TREJO; ZAIDA LARISSA BENITEZ                    Agency Nos.
ALVAREZ; SHEILA AYLEN ALVAREZ                   A209-388-264
TREJO,                                          A209-388-265
                                                A209-388-266
             Petitioners,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                     Argued and Submitted April 11, 2023
                            Pasadena, California

Before: BERZON, MILLER, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

      Victoria Orbelina Alvarez Trejo (“Alvarez Trejo”), a native and citizen of

El Salvador, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)

decision affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her and her two

minor daughters’ applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

      *
            This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not
precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the

petition.

      “Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we review both

decisions.” Garcia-Martinez v. Sessions, 886 F.3d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 2018).

“We examine the BIA’s ‘legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for

substantial evidence.’” Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir.

2021) (quoting Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir.

2017) (en banc)).

      1. The BIA did not err in determining that Alvarez Trejo failed to

establish a fear of future persecution on account of her membership in either of

the two particular social groups Alvarez Trejo proposed.

      First, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Alvarez

Trejo was not targeted because of her membership in the proposed particular

social group “nuclear family.” No evidence in the record supports the

conclusion that Alvarez Trejo or family members were targeted on account of

their family association. Rather, as the IJ concluded, the evidence, including

Alvarez Trejo’s own testimony, shows that Alvarez Trejo’s interactions, as well

as her family’s interactions, with the 18th Street Gang appear to be random or

economically motivated.

      Second, the BIA did not err in concluding that Alvarez Trejo’s second

proposed particular social group, “El Salvadoran women who gangs believe

reported crimes to police” is not cognizable on the instant record. Substantial

                                        2                                    21-547
evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that the proposed group is not

cognizable because it is not socially distinct. No evidence in the record shows

that Salvadoran society perceives women who are perceived by gangs to have

reported crimes to police as a group. Cf. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d

1238, 1243 (9th Cir. 2020) (noting that people who privately report crimes to

police may be socially distinct “if there were evidence that, in a specific

country, people in the community knew who reported crimes to the police, or if

there were laws protecting those who did”). Although Alvarez Trejo argues that

the witness protection law enacted in 2006 serves as evidence that Salvadoran

society views people who report crimes to police as socially unique, neither the

witness protection law, as described in the record, nor the country conditions

reports mention protections for women who are perceived to have reported

crimes to police. See Matter of H-L-S-A-, 28 I. & N. Dec. 228, 237-38 (BIA

2021).

      Moreover, the evidence does not compel a conclusion contrary to the

BIA’s determination that the gang did not actually perceive Alvarez Trejo to

have reported a crime. Although some evidence in Alvarez Trejo’s testimony

supports her contention that the gang believed she had reported a crime, Alvarez

Trejo also recounted that the gang made statements indicating it threatened her

in exchange for future silence, rather than because of a belief that she had

reported crimes.

                                         3                                     21-547
      In sum, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Alvarez

Trejo failed to show a nexus between past or future persecution and the

proposed group “nuclear family.” Her second proposed social group,

Salvadoran women who gangs believe have reported crimes, is not, on this

record, cognizable. We therefore affirm the denial of Alvarez Trejo’s asylum

application as to those grounds.

      2. The BIA also did not err in determining that Alvarez Trejo did not

establish a nexus between either past or feared future persecution and her

political opinion. The record does not support a conclusion that Alvarez Trejo

held or expressed a political opinion by remaining neutral in an environment in

which political neutrality is fraught with hazard. See Sangha v. I.N.S., 103 F.3d

1482, 1488 (9th Cir. 1997). Alvarez Trejo’s testimony that she refused to

shelter a fleeing gang member and initially refused to pay money to gangs from

the family store, is insufficient to compel the conclusion that she expressed a

refusal to support gangs. Alvarez Trejo also did not introduce evidence

compelling the conclusion that the gang imputed a political opinion to her or

targeted her on account of that opinion. Alvarez Trejo explains the gang’s

persecution of her family as principally random (fleeing police), money-based,

or retaliatory. Thus, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that

Alvarez Trejo did not establish that she held or was imputed to have a political

opinion for which she was targeted. Her claim for asylum on that ground fails.

                                        4                                    21-547
      3. Finally, the BIA did not err in rejecting Alvarez Trejo’s Convention

Against Torture claim on the grounds that Alvarez Trejo did not establish that

she is more likely than not to be tortured upon return to El Salvador and that the

government would acquiesce in torture by the 18th Street Gang. See 8 C.F.R. §

1208.18(a)(1). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusions, incorporated

into the BIA’s review, that the gang did not previously torture Alvarez Trejo

and that she has not shown that any future treatment would reach the level of

torture. Additionally, Alvarez Trejo’s testimony that gang members threatened

her about going to the police and were hiding from the police supports the

BIA’s conclusion that the police and government are not working together with

the gang, so the police would not turn a blind eye to the gang’s treatment of

Alvarez Trejo’s family. Finally, the country conditions reports that Alvarez

Trejo submitted contain descriptions of the Salvadoran government’s efforts to

control gang activity, additionally supporting the BIA’s conclusion that

acquiescence is not shown on the record. In sum, the record does not compel

the conclusion that Alvarez Trejo would be tortured upon return to El Salvador

or that the government would acquiesce in such torture, and the BIA did not err

in denying Alvarez Trejo’s CAT claim.

      The petition for review is DENIED. The motion to stay removal is

DENIED.

                                        5                                    21-547