Jenny Sandoval-Villegas v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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