USCA4 Appeal: 24-1630 Doc: 22 Filed: 08/06/2025 Pg: 1 of 6
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1630
BLANCA IDANIA AQUINO-MENENDEZ; H.I.S.A.; S.N.S.A.,
Petitioners,
v.
PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: April 11, 2025 Decided: August 6, 2025
Before BENJAMIN and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition for review denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Germantown, Maryland, for Petitioners. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Julie M. Iversen, Senior Litigation Counsel, Robert Michael Stalzer, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 24-1630 Doc: 22 Filed: 08/06/2025 Pg: 2 of 6
PER CURIAM:
Blanca Aquino-Menendez, on behalf of herself and her two minor daughters
H.I.S.A. and S.N.S.A., petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals upholding the immigration judge’s denial of Aquino-Menendez’s application
seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). 1 Finding no reversible error, we deny the petition for review.
I.
Aquino-Menendez and her daughters are natives and citizens of El Salvador. On
November 23, 2016, two men came to Aquino-Menendez’s house and told her she had 24
hours to vacate the premises, or she and her daughters would be killed. Aquino-Menendez
did not know the men or see any tattoos, but she believed them to be gang members based
on the way they talked and dressed. Aquino-Menendez began making plans to leave El
Salvador for the United States, where her husband was living.
Less than a week later, Aquino-Menendez encountered the same men on the street.
They pointed a gun at her head and told her that if she did not leave the area, they would
kill her daughters first and then her. Aquino-Menendez reported the threats to the police,
packed up her belongings, and left with her children. The family stayed briefly with
Aquino-Menendez’s aunt, who lived about 40 minutes away, and left El Salvador on
December 2, 2016.
1 H.I.S.A. and S.N.S.A. were named as derivative beneficiaries in Aquino’s asylum application, but they did not file their own applications for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture.
2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1630 Doc: 22 Filed: 08/06/2025 Pg: 3 of 6
Aquino-Menendez and her daughters entered the United States on December 13,
2016. They were intercepted immediately and briefly detained. After determining that
Aquino-Menendez and her children were not lawfully present in the country, the
government commenced removal proceedings. Aquino-Menendez conceded removability
but sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. The
immigration judge (“IJ”) found Aquino-Menendez’s testimony credible and adequately
corroborated by her other evidence but denied her application because the evidence failed
to satisfy the statutory requirements for relief. The Board adopted the IJ’s opinion and
dismissed Aquino-Menendez’s appeal.
II.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Attorney General may confer
asylum on a “refugee,” which is defined as a person unwilling or unable to return to her
native country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). “The asylum-seeker bears the burden of demonstrating her
refugee status,” and must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a
protected ground because of a threat by the government or by an organization the
government is unable or unwilling to control. Velasquez v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 188, 193-94
(4th Cir. 2017). “[W]ithholding of removal covers a narrower . . . set of circumstances than
asylum,” and requires the applicant to “demonstrate a clear probability of persecution.” Yi
Ni v. Holder, 613 F.3d 415, 427 (4th Cir. 2010) (cleaned up). Because of the higher
3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1630 Doc: 22 Filed: 08/06/2025 Pg: 4 of 6
evidentiary threshold, “an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible
for withholding of removal.” Id. (cleaned up).
The immigration judge concluded that the threats made against Aquino-Menendez
and her children were severe enough to amount to past persecution and that she had a well-
founded fear of future persecution based on those threats. The IJ nonetheless denied relief
because Aquino-Menendez had not demonstrated that the persecution was on account of a
protected ground. The Board adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, agreeing that the
threats amounted to persecution and that Aquino-Menendez had not established a nexus
between the persecution and a statutorily protected ground. 2
We have reviewed the administrative record and considered the arguments raised on
appeal in conjunction with the record and the relevant authorities. We conclude that the
record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings,
see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence supports the dispositive ruling
that Aquino-Menendez failed to establish the statutorily required nexus between the
claimed protected grounds and the asserted past persecution or the feared future
persecution, see Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817, 824 (4th Cir. 2020) (explaining
2 The IJ also concluded, in the alternative, that Aquino-Menendez had not demonstrated that the government would be unable or unwilling to protect her. Because the Board did not consider this aspect of the IJ’s ruling, neither do we. See Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson, 990 F.3d 350, 356 (4th Cir. 2021) (“When the Board adopts the analysis used by the IJ but supplements it with its own reasoning, we review both decisions,” but “we limit our consideration of the IJ’s opinion to the portions that have been adopted and incorporated into the Board's decision.”) (cleaned up).
4 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1630 Doc: 22 Filed: 08/06/2025 Pg: 5 of 6
that appellate review of the agency’s nexus determination “is limited to considering
whether their conclusion is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence”)
(cleaned up). Aquino-Menendez’s evidence did not establish that the men threatened her
because of her political opinions, actual or imputed, or because of her membership in a
particular social group. Even accepting that Aquino-Menendez’s proposed social group—
mother of H.I.S.A. and S.N.S.A—was cognizable, there is no evidence showing that
Aquino-Menendez was targeted because she was the mother of H.I.S.A. and S.N.S.A.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
USCA4 Appeal: 24-1630 Doc: 22 Filed: 08/06/2025 Pg: 1 of 6
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1630
BLANCA IDANIA AQUINO-MENENDEZ; H.I.S.A.; S.N.S.A.,
Petitioners,
v.
PAMELA JO BONDI, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: April 11, 2025 Decided: August 6, 2025
Before BENJAMIN and BERNER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition for review denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Germantown, Maryland, for Petitioners. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Julie M. Iversen, Senior Litigation Counsel, Robert Michael Stalzer, 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: 24-1630 Doc: 22 Filed: 08/06/2025 Pg: 2 of 6
PER CURIAM:
Blanca Aquino-Menendez, on behalf of herself and her two minor daughters
H.I.S.A. and S.N.S.A., petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals upholding the immigration judge’s denial of Aquino-Menendez’s application
seeking asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). 1 Finding no reversible error, we deny the petition for review.
I.
Aquino-Menendez and her daughters are natives and citizens of El Salvador. On
November 23, 2016, two men came to Aquino-Menendez’s house and told her she had 24
hours to vacate the premises, or she and her daughters would be killed. Aquino-Menendez
did not know the men or see any tattoos, but she believed them to be gang members based
on the way they talked and dressed. Aquino-Menendez began making plans to leave El
Salvador for the United States, where her husband was living.
Less than a week later, Aquino-Menendez encountered the same men on the street.
They pointed a gun at her head and told her that if she did not leave the area, they would
kill her daughters first and then her. Aquino-Menendez reported the threats to the police,
packed up her belongings, and left with her children. The family stayed briefly with
Aquino-Menendez’s aunt, who lived about 40 minutes away, and left El Salvador on
December 2, 2016.
1 H.I.S.A. and S.N.S.A. were named as derivative beneficiaries in Aquino’s asylum application, but they did not file their own applications for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture.
2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1630 Doc: 22 Filed: 08/06/2025 Pg: 3 of 6
Aquino-Menendez and her daughters entered the United States on December 13,
2016. They were intercepted immediately and briefly detained. After determining that
Aquino-Menendez and her children were not lawfully present in the country, the
government commenced removal proceedings. Aquino-Menendez conceded removability
but sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. The
immigration judge (“IJ”) found Aquino-Menendez’s testimony credible and adequately
corroborated by her other evidence but denied her application because the evidence failed
to satisfy the statutory requirements for relief. The Board adopted the IJ’s opinion and
dismissed Aquino-Menendez’s appeal.
II.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Attorney General may confer
asylum on a “refugee,” which is defined as a person unwilling or unable to return to her
native country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” 8
U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). “The asylum-seeker bears the burden of demonstrating her
refugee status,” and must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a
protected ground because of a threat by the government or by an organization the
government is unable or unwilling to control. Velasquez v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 188, 193-94
(4th Cir. 2017). “[W]ithholding of removal covers a narrower . . . set of circumstances than
asylum,” and requires the applicant to “demonstrate a clear probability of persecution.” Yi
Ni v. Holder, 613 F.3d 415, 427 (4th Cir. 2010) (cleaned up). Because of the higher
3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1630 Doc: 22 Filed: 08/06/2025 Pg: 4 of 6
evidentiary threshold, “an applicant who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible
for withholding of removal.” Id. (cleaned up).
The immigration judge concluded that the threats made against Aquino-Menendez
and her children were severe enough to amount to past persecution and that she had a well-
founded fear of future persecution based on those threats. The IJ nonetheless denied relief
because Aquino-Menendez had not demonstrated that the persecution was on account of a
protected ground. The Board adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, agreeing that the
threats amounted to persecution and that Aquino-Menendez had not established a nexus
between the persecution and a statutorily protected ground. 2
We have reviewed the administrative record and considered the arguments raised on
appeal in conjunction with the record and the relevant authorities. We conclude that the
record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings,
see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence supports the dispositive ruling
that Aquino-Menendez failed to establish the statutorily required nexus between the
claimed protected grounds and the asserted past persecution or the feared future
persecution, see Cedillos-Cedillos v. Barr, 962 F.3d 817, 824 (4th Cir. 2020) (explaining
2 The IJ also concluded, in the alternative, that Aquino-Menendez had not demonstrated that the government would be unable or unwilling to protect her. Because the Board did not consider this aspect of the IJ’s ruling, neither do we. See Arita-Deras v. Wilkinson, 990 F.3d 350, 356 (4th Cir. 2021) (“When the Board adopts the analysis used by the IJ but supplements it with its own reasoning, we review both decisions,” but “we limit our consideration of the IJ’s opinion to the portions that have been adopted and incorporated into the Board's decision.”) (cleaned up).
4 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1630 Doc: 22 Filed: 08/06/2025 Pg: 5 of 6
that appellate review of the agency’s nexus determination “is limited to considering
whether their conclusion is supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence”)
(cleaned up). Aquino-Menendez’s evidence did not establish that the men threatened her
because of her political opinions, actual or imputed, or because of her membership in a
particular social group. Even accepting that Aquino-Menendez’s proposed social group—
mother of H.I.S.A. and S.N.S.A—was cognizable, there is no evidence showing that
Aquino-Menendez was targeted because she was the mother of H.I.S.A. and S.N.S.A.
Indeed, there is no evidence at all explaining why the men targeted Aquino-Menendez.
While it is possible that their actions were politically motivated, it is just as likely from the
record before us that they were apolitical criminals who simply wanted to steal Aquino-
Menendez’s house. We therefore find no reversible error in the Board’s rejection of Aquino-
Menendez’s asylum claim. And because Aquino-Menendez’s asylum application fails, her
withholding of removal application necessarily fails as well. See Yi Ni, 613 F.3d at 427.
III.
“To succeed on a CAT claim, an applicant must show that it is more likely than not
that he or she would be tortured in the country of removal.” Herrera-Martinez v. Garland,
22 F.4th 173, 185 (4th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up). “Torture is (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 with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting
in an official capacity.” Id. (cleaned up). “The agency’s factual findings—including its
predictions about the likelihood of future mistreatment and government acquiescence—are
5 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1630 Doc: 22 Filed: 08/06/2025 Pg: 6 of 6
conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the
contrary.” Ponce-Flores v. Garland, 80 F.4th 480, 484 (4th Cir. 2023) (cleaned up).
The IJ concluded, and the Board agreed, that Aquino-Menendez failed to
demonstrate that she had been tortured in the past or that she would likely be killed or
tortured with the knowledge or acquiescence of the government if she returned to El
Salvador. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the evidence does not compel a
ruling contrary to the relevant administrative factual findings and that substantial evidence
supports the denial of relief. See Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573, 584 (2020).
IV.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, 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 FOR REVIEW DENIED