Court Opinion

ID: 9365319
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-23 19:00:35.64435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:44.854141
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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

ARACELY ESCALANTE AYALA; SAUL                   No.    18-73510
ANTONIO BONILLA ESCALANTE;
BRYAN ERNESTO BONILLA                           Agency Nos.       A208-927-302
ESCALANTE,                                                        A208-927-303
                                                                  A208-927-304
                Petitioners,

 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.

      Aracely Escalante Ayala and her two children, 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

      *
             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).
application for asylum, and denying Escalante Ayala’s applications for

withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence the agency’s factual findings, including the agency’s determination that

the serious nonpolitical crime bar applies. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238,

1241 (9th Cir. 2020); Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny

the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that there were

serious reasons to believe Escalante Ayala committed a serious nonpolitical crime.

See Go, 640 F.3d at 1052-53 (drug trafficking is presumptively a serious

nonpolitical crime, and hearing testimony was sufficient to establish serious

reasons for believing commission of the offense). Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim,

and Escalante Ayala’s withholding of removal claim, fail.

      Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Escalante Ayala failed to show it is more likely than not she 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); see also

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).

                                           2                                     18-73510
      We reject as unsupported by the record Escalante Ayala’s contention that the

agency ignored evidence or otherwise erred in the analysis of her claims.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         3                                  18-73510