Court Opinion

ID: 9393882
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-11 16:00:44.929009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:55.954629
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                            MAY 11 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA ADELINA GUARDADO; et al.,                  No.    18-71255

              Petitioners,                       Agency Nos.         A206-700-188
                                                                     A206-700-189
 v.                                                                  A206-700-190

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,                                         MEMORANDUM*

              Respondent.

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

                              Submitted May 8, 2023**
                                Pasadena, California

Before: KLEINFELD, HURWITZ, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

      Maria Guardado, Jorge Alvarez-Guardado, and Jennifer Alvarez-Guardado

petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s decision affirming an

immigration judge’s denials of their applications for asylum, withholding 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).
removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and a motion for

continuance. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). The Board

conducted its own review of evidence and law, so we review its decision. Guerra

v. Barr, 974 F.3d 909, 911 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition.

      The Board correctly decided that the threats petitioners received did not rise

to the level of past persecution.1 Threats alone can constitute past persecution “in

only a small category of cases, and only when the threats are so menacing as to

cause significant actual suffering or harm.” Lim v. INS, 224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th

Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Unfulfilled threats are

very rarely sufficient to rise to the level of persecution . . . .” Hussain v. Rosen,

985 F.3d 634, 647 (9th Cir. 2021). This case is not in that small category. As

petitioners testified, although they received threats from the gangs, no threats were

ever carried out.

      Further, substantial evidence supports the agency’s factual determination

that Guardado failed to establish that the gangs would persecute her because of her

      1
        We need not decide whether the Board’s determination is subject to de
novo or substantial-evidence review, because it passes both standards. Cf. Singh v.
Garland, 57 F.4th 643, 652 (9th Cir. 2022) (“[W]e need not address whether de
novo review should apply, or discuss the nuances of the two standards, because the
harm Singh suffered rose to the level of persecution under the more deferential
substantial evidence standard of review.”) (internal quotations and alteration
omitted).
                                            2
membership in the social group of “Salvadoran business owners who on account of

their business ownership alone fall victim to gang violence and [un]lawfulness” or

“a family [that] actively opposes gang violence and [un]lawfulness.”

Santos-Ponce v. Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 886, 890 (9th Cir. 2021) (standard of review).

Substantial evidence supports the proposition that the gangs would extort anyone

who they believed had money, regardless of whether they belong to one of these

social groups. Indeed, Guardado testified that she faced extortion not only when

she was operating the tortilla shop but also as a parent of a school child. Since

Guardado failed to establish any nexus between her feared persecution and a social

group, her asylum and withholding claims fail. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d

1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010). In addition, the agency correctly followed our

precedent in holding that the gangs’ recruitment efforts towards Jorge and Jennifer

do not give rise to a protected ground. See Gutierrez-Alm v. Garland, 62 F.4th

1186, 1200 n.7 (9th Cir. 2023) (collecting cases).

      As to the agency’s denial of CAT protection, substantial evidence supports

the agency’s factual determination that petitioners failed to establish torture as

defined by the governing regulation. Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742,

748 (9th Cir. 2022) (standard of review). The record lacks evidence of either

                                           3
“severe pain or suffering” or government involvement or endorsement. See

8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1).

      We also deny the petition for review of the agency’s denial of continuance,

because the decision does not constitute an abuse of discretion. Pleitez-Lopez v.

Barr, 935 F.3d 716, 719 (9th Cir. 2019) (standard of review). The agency acted

within its discretion in deciding that petitioners did not show good cause as

required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.29. The Board took note that for more than a year,

Guardado did not contact her attorney to prepare her case despite an immigration

judge’s warning that the merits hearing would not be continued absent exceptional

circumstances. Further, Guardado only requested a general permission to gather

more supporting documents, but did not specify the nature of the documents she

sought to introduce.

      Our conclusion remains the same even considering the possibility of Jorge

and Jennifer’s Special Immigrant Juvenile Status applications. Even assuming

they were eligible for that status, Guardado’s unreasonable delay in submitting

applications to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services justified the

agency’s denial of the motion for continuance.

      PETITION DENIED.

                                          4