Court Opinion

ID: 9380611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-20 18:00:32.907946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:26.435777
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 20 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JENNY MARISOL SANDOVAL-                          No.   21-70084
VILLEGAS; ET AL.,
                                                 Agency Nos.      A208-163-062
                Petitioners,                                      A208-163-063

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

                Respondent.

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

                               Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      Jenny Marisol Sandoval-Villegas and her minor child, natives and citizens of

El Salvador, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order

dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

      *
             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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Conde

Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the petition for

review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that petitioners did

not establish that the government of El Salvador is unable or unwilling to control

the agents of any feared persecution. See Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d

1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (record did not compel a finding that the government

was unwilling or unable to control the feared harm). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and

withholding of removal claims fail.

      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s 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); Garcia-Milian v. Holder,

755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014) (“torture must be ‘inflicted by or at the

instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other

person acting in an official capacity’”) (internal citation omitted).

      Sandoval-Villegas’s contentions that the agency ignored evidence or

otherwise erred in its analysis of her claims is unsupported by the record.

      Petitioners’ opposed motion to remand (Docket Entry No. 16) is denied.

                                           2                                  21-70084
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                  3                                21-70084