Aracely Escalante Ayala v. Merrick Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 23, 2023
• Docket: 18-73510
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 23 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARACELY ESCALANTE AYALA; SAUL No. 18-73510 ANTONIO BONILLA ESCALANTE; BRYAN ERNESTO BONILLA Agency Nos. A208-927-302 ESCALANTE, A208-927-303 A208-927-304 Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Aracely Escalante Ayala and her two children, 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

* 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). application for asylum, and denying Escalante Ayala’s applications for

withholding of removal and protection 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, including the agency’s determination that

the serious nonpolitical crime bar applies. Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238,

1241 (9th Cir. 2020); Go v. Holder, 640 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny

the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that there were

serious reasons to believe Escalante Ayala committed a serious nonpolitical crime.

See Go, 640 F.3d at 1052-53 (drug trafficking is presumptively a serious

nonpolitical crime, and hearing testimony was sufficient to establish serious

reasons for believing commission of the offense). Thus, petitioners’ asylum claim,

and Escalante Ayala’s withholding of removal claim, fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection

because Escalante Ayala failed to show it is more likely than not she 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); see also

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).

2 18-73510 We reject as unsupported by the record Escalante Ayala’s contention that the

agency ignored evidence or otherwise erred in the analysis of her claims.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 18-73510