Arias-Lemus v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 18, 2025
• Docket: 23-2420
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 18 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LILIANA JEAMILETH ARIAS- No. 23-2420 LEMUS; MATEO NATANAEL Agency Nos. RAMIREZ-ARIAS, A220-193-459 A220-193-460 Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM*

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted July 14, 2025**

Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Pro se petitioner Liliana Jeamileth Arias-Lemus, a native and citizen of El

Salvador, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of

her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her claims for asylum,

* 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). withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

Arias-Lemus is the lead applicant, and her minor son is a derivative applicant on

her asylum request. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we need not

recount them here.

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where, as here, “the BIA cites

Matter of Burbano and does not express any disagreement with the IJ’s decision,

we review the IJ’s decision as if it were the BIA’s.” Hakopian v. Mukasey, 551

F.3d 843, 846 (9th Cir. 2008). We review the legal determinations de novo and the

factual determinations for substantial evidence. Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850

F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Due process challenges are reviewed de

novo. Troncoso-Oviedo v. Garland, 43 F.4th 936, 939 (9th Cir. 2022). We deny

the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of Arias-Lemus’s

applications for asylum and withholding of removal. To be eligible for asylum, a

petitioner must “demonstrate a likelihood of persecution or a well-founded fear of

future persecution on account of age, religion, nationality, membership in a

particular social group, or political opinion.” Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052,

1059 (9th Cir. 2021). Arias-Lemus’s claim for relief is based on the harms suffered

by her brother and her mother. The harms that “family members or close friends”

experience are relevant to the past persecution analysis only if they are “part of a

2 23-2420 pattern of persecution closely tied to the petitioner [her]self.” Id. at 1062. The

record indicates that her brother’s murder stemmed from a gang rivalry and that

her mother received threats due to her potential testimony against the perpetrators

of Arias-Lemus’s brother’s murder. But Arias-Lemus herself is not a member of a

gang, and she was never called upon to testify in the proceedings against the two

officers. Consequently, the record does not compel a finding of past persecution.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s determination that Arias-

Lemus did not establish an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution.

Because Arias-Lemus did not establish past persecution, she does not benefit from

the presumption of a well-founded fear of persecution. Id. at 1060. That Arias-

Lemus’s mother continues to live in Ahuachapan, El Salvador “undermines a

reasonable fear of future persecution.” Id. at 1066. The record also does not

suggest the two policemen have shown any continued interest in Arias-Lemus or

would be a threat if she returned. See Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 934–35 (9th

Cir. 2004).

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection. To

succeed on a CAT claim, a petitioner must show it is “more likely than not that he

or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.16(c)(2). “Torture is ‘more severe than persecution.’” Davila v. Barr, 968

F.3d 1136, 1144 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1217

3 23-2420 (9th Cir. 2018)). Because Arias-Lemus’s past harm did not rise to the level of

persecution, “it necessarily falls short of the definition of torture.” Sharma, 9 F.4th

at 1059. Arias-Lemus has not identified any other evidence in the record which

would either establish past torture or demonstrate she would be subject to a

particularized risk of future torture. See Gutierrez-Alm v. Garland, 62 F.4th 1186,

1201 (9th Cir. 2021).

Finally, Arias-Lemus’s due process claim is unfounded. Due process

“require[s] a minimum degree of clarity in dispositive reasoning and in the

treatment of a properly raised argument.” She v. Holder, 629 F.3d 958, 963 (9th

Cir. 2010) (superseded by statute on other grounds). The BIA’s denial of Arias-

Lemus’s claim included that “minimum degree of clarity” by offering reasoned

grounds for denial of Arias-Lemus’s CAT claim, including that Arias-Lemus had

not demonstrated that she would likely be tortured if removed or that such torture

would occur with the consent or acquiescence of the Salvadoran government.

Although Arias-Lemus alleges government corruption based on the involvement of

two police officers, this alone does not compel a finding that the BIA somehow

“ignored [Arias-Lemus’s] CAT claim.” Antonyan v. Holder, 642 F.3d 1250, 1256–

57 (9th Cir. 2011).

PETITION DENIED.

4 23-2420