USCA11 Case: 22-10661 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 12/22/2022 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-10661
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
MILARGO L. MOLINA-SIGUENZA,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
____________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A206-710-380
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-10661 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 12/22/2022 Page: 2 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 22-10661
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Cir-
cuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Milargo Molina-Siguenza, a native and citizen of El Salva-
dor, petitions for review of the denial of her applications for asylum
and withholding of removal and for relief under the United Nations
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or De-
grading Treatment or Punishment.
8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b), 1231(b)(3).
The Board of Immigration Appeals agreed with the immigration
judge that Molina-Siguenza was ineligible for asylum and with-
holding of removal because she failed to prove past persecution or
a well-founded fear of future persecution. The Board also agreed
that Molina-Siguenza failed to prove that the El Salvadoran gov-
ernment was unable or unwilling to protect her from private actors
or that she was likely to be tortured if she returned to El Salvador.
We deny the petition.
When the Board affirms the immigration judge’s decision,
we review both decisions. Lopez v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
914 F.3d 1292,
1297 (11th Cir. 2019). Our review is “limited” by “the highly defer-
ential substantial evidence test,” under which we must affirm the
decision so long as it is “supported by reasonable, substantial, and
probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Silva v.
U.S. Att’y Gen.,
448 F.3d 1229, 1237 (11th Cir. 2006). Under that
test, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the deci-
sion of the immigration judge and draw all reasonable inferences
USCA11 Case: 22-10661 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 12/22/2022 Page: 3 of 4
22-10661 Opinion of the Court 3
in favor of that decision.
Id. at 1236. We can reverse “only when
the record compels a reversal; the mere fact that the record may
support a contrary conclusion is not enough to justify a reversal of
the administrative findings.” Adefemi v. Ashcroft,
386 F.3d 1022,
1027 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc).
To establish eligibility for asylum, Molina-Siguenza bore the
burden of proving that she is a refugee under the Act. See
8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B); Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
401 F.3d 1226, 1230
(11th Cir. 2005). The Act defines “refugee” as a person “who is un-
able or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail []
herself of the protection of, [her country of nationality] because of
persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group,
or political opinion.”
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). The record sup-
ports the finding that Molina-Siguenza failed to satisfy her burden.
Substantial evidence supports the finding that Mo-
lina-Siguenza did not suffer past persecution. Molina-Siguenza tes-
tified that in 2012 her sister Elisa received a text message from an
individual, later believed to be a cousin, threatening to sexually
abuse them and two other sisters. Molina-Siguenza testified that in
2014 a neighborhood gang member called “Salvador” followed her
and threatened to sexually abuse the sisters, but he never touched
them. And in two other instances, an unknown man grabbed her
chest, but she ran home. These isolated and brief incidents consid-
ered cumulatively do not amount to persecution. Persecution “is
an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment
USCA11 Case: 22-10661 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 12/22/2022 Page: 4 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 22-10661
our society regards as offensive.” Murugan v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
10
F.4th 1185, 1192 (11th Cir. 2021). Even verbal threats and minor
physical abuse do not compel a finding that an alien has suffered
persecution. See Djonda v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
514 F.3d 1168, 1174
(11th Cir. 2008); Sepulveda,
401 F.3d at 1231 (holding threats and
menacing phone calls did not amount to persecution).
Substantial evidence also supports the finding that Mo-
lina-Siguenza lacks a well-founded fear of future persecution. With-
out evidence of past persecution, Molina-Siguenza is not entitled
to a presumption of future persecution. See Murugan, 10 F.4th at
1193. And the record does not compel a finding that Mo-
lina-Siguenza would be singled out for persecution. See id. Mo-
lina-Siguenza identified only a handful of incidents of sexual harass-
ment and threats by a cousin and neighborhood gang member and
groping by two unknown men. And although she testified about
the large gang presence in her neighborhood, she also testified that
she was unaware of any instances of gang violence against women
there. Molina-Siguenza’s evidence of being subjected to sexual har-
assment and of an unsympathetic police force is insufficient to com-
pel a reversal of the finding that she failed to prove a well-founded
fear of persecution. Sepulveda,
401 F.3d at 1231-32. And because
Molina-Siguenza “failed to establish a claim of asylum on the mer-
its, [she] necessarily fails to establish eligibility for withholding of
removal or protection under CAT.” Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
401
F.3d 1282, 1288 n.4 (11th Cir. 2005).
We DENY Molina-Siguenza’s petition for review.
