Alexandra Romero v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 22, 2024
• Docket: 23-1559
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1559 Doc: 35 Filed: 05/22/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1559

ALEXANDRA Y. ROMERO,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: May 1, 2024 Decided: May 22, 2024

Before AGEE and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Tamara L. Jezic, JEZIC & MOYSE, LLC, Wheaton, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Erica B. Miles, Assistant Director, Duncan T. Fulton, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1559 Doc: 35 Filed: 05/22/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Alexandra Y. Romero, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of

the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing her appeal from the

immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the

petition for review.

We will affirm the agency’s determination of the applicant’s eligibility for asylum

or withholding of removal if it is supported by substantial evidence on the record

considered as a whole. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). “[A]dministrative

findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to

conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). Legal issues are reviewed de novo.

Li Fang Lin v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 685, 691-92 (4th Cir. 2008). “When an applicant claims

that she fears persecution by a private actor, she must also show that the government in her

native country is unable or unwilling to control her persecutor.” Diaz de Gomez v.

Wilkinson, 987 F.3d 359, 365 (4th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also

Mulyani v. Holder, 771 F.3d 190, 197-98 (4th Cir. 2014) (noting that it is the petitioner’s

burden to show that the government was unable or unwilling to control the private

persecutors). We have reviewed the record and considered Romero’s claims and conclude

that substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Romero did not meet her

burden of showing that the Salvadoran government was unable or unwilling to control her

persecutor.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1559 Doc: 35 Filed: 05/22/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

To qualify for CAT protection, the applicant must show that it is more likely than

not she will be tortured in El Salvador. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). The likelihood of

torture need not be linked to a protected ground. Zelaya v. Holder, 668 F.3d 159, 167

(4th Cir. 2012). Torture is defined as (1) “any act by which severe pain or suffering,

whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person” in a manner that is

(2) “by, or at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of, a public official

acting in an official capacity or other person acting in an official capacity.” 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.18(a)(1). “Acquiescence of a public official requires that the public official, prior

to the activity constituting torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach

his or her legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.” 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.18(a)(7). “The official or officials need not have actual knowledge of the torture;

it is enough if they simply turn a blind eye to it.” Mulyani, 771 F.3d at 200 (internal

quotation marks omitted). We have considered Romero’s claims and conclude that the

agency’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and there is no legal error.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED