Karen Alvarez-Menjivar v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KAREN ESTELA ALVAREZ-MENJIVAR; No. 16-71661
EDGARDO VLADIMIR RODRIGUEZ-
ALVAREZ, Agency Nos. A202-001-947
A202-001-948
Petitioners,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Karen Estela Alvarez-Menjivar, and her son, Edgardo Vladimir Rodriguez-
Alvarez, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s
*
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).
decision denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
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.
Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the harm
petitioners experienced did not rise to the level of persecution. See Duran-
Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028-29 (9th Cir. 2019) (record did not compel
finding that harm rises to the level of persecution where perpetrators took no
violent actions against the petitioner or his family beyond threats). Substantial
evidence also supports the conclusion that petitioners did not establish a well-
founded fear of future persecution. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1022 (9th
Cir. 2006) (petitioner failed to present “compelling, objective evidence
demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution”). Thus, petitioners’ asylum
claims fail.
Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, in this case they
did not establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See Zehatye, 453 F.3d at
1190.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
petitioners did not establish that it is more likely than not they would be tortured by
2 16-71661
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).
We reject as unsupported by the record petitioners’ contentions that the
agency failed to consider evidence or otherwise erred in its analysis.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 16-71661