Moran Lopez v. Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Sandra Guadalupe Moran Lopez; Sandra No. 21-883
Nicole Trinidad Moran,
Agency Nos. A206-434-970
Petitioners, A206-434-971
v.
MEMORANDUM*
Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 15, 2023**
Pasadena, California
Before: TASHIMA, CHRISTEN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Sandra Guadalupe Moran Lopez and her daughter, Sandra Nicole
Trinidad Moran, petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals dismissing their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
*
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).
Because the Board cited Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (B.I.A.
1994), and expressed no disagreement with the immigration judge’s decision,
we review that decision as if it were the Board’s. Cinapian v. Holder, 567 F.3d
1067, 1073 (9th Cir. 2009). We review the agency’s factual findings for
substantial evidence. Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2021).
Under that standard, the agency’s findings of fact are conclusive unless “any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Ren v.
Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1083 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(B)).
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that
Moran Lopez and her daughter did not show a nexus between any alleged
persecution and a protected ground. To obtain either asylum or withholding of
removal, an alien must demonstrate some connection between the harm she
fears and a protected ground. Garcia v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1136, 1142–43,
1146 (9th Cir. 2021). Petitioners offer no reason to believe that the extortion
and harassment they endured in El Salvador were anything other than
financially motivated “theft or random violence by gang members,” which
“bear[] no nexus to a protected ground.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016
(9th Cir. 2010).
2. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that
Moran Lopez and her daughter did not show that it is more likely than not that
they would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of a government official in
2
El Salvador. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.18(a)(1). Moran Lopez testified that she has
never interacted with the police in El Salvador, and that neither she nor her
daughter has ever had problems with the police in El Salvador. While Moran
Lopez believes the police are corrupt and has heard of gangs infiltrating the
police, the record shows that the government of El Salvador has been actively
combating gang activity. The record does not compel a conclusion contrary to
that of the agency.
The motion for a stay of removal (Dkt. No. 2) is denied. The temporary
stay of removal is lifted upon issuance of the mandate.
PETITION DENIED.
3