Linares Ramos v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 18, 2024
• Docket: 23-119
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 18 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IRIS LINARES RAMOS; ROSSELYN No. 23-119 SOLORZANO LINARES, Agency Nos. A215-703-919 Petitioners, A215-703-920 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted May 15, 2024** Pasadena, California

Before: COLLINS, H.A. THOMAS, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Iris Linares Ramos and her minor daughter petition for review of an order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming a decision by an Immigration

Judge (“IJ”) denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and

* 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). protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).1 We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petitions.

Where the BIA agrees with the IJ’s findings while adding its own reasoning,

we review the decisions of the BIA and the IJ to the extent that the BIA agreed

with the IJ’s conclusions. Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 632 (9th Cir.

2022). “We review ‘denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for

substantial evidence.’” Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017)

(quoting Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014)). Under this

“highly deferential” standard, the agency’s factual findings are “conclusive unless

any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”

Salguero Sosa v. Garland, 55 F.4th 1213, 1217–18 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting

Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573, 584 (2020)).

1. The BIA found that Linares Ramos waived any challenges to the IJ’s

dispositive determination that she had not established unwillingness or inability on

the part of Salvadoran authorities to protect her or her family. Linares Ramos does

not contest the BIA’s finding of waiver before our court. We therefore decline to

1 Linares Ramos and her minor daughter filed separate petitions based on the same underlying factual contentions in Linares Ramos’s application. Linares Ramos’s daughter is also a derivative beneficiary of Linares Ramos’s asylum application. See Ali v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 780, 782 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that, unlike asylum, derivative relief is not available with respect to withholding of removal or relief under CAT).

2 23-119 review Linares Ramos’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal on the

merits, and decline to review her daughter’s claims for the same reasons. INS v.

Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976).

2. Even assuming that Linares Ramos has not forfeited her CAT claim,

substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Linares Ramos failed to

establish that she is “more likely than not” to face future torture if returned to El

Salvador. See Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010). The

record does not compel the conclusion that the past extortion or threats made

against Linares Ramos and her family rose to the level of torture. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1208.18(a)(4); see also Hussain v. Rosen, 985 F.3d 634, 647–48 (9th Cir. 2021)

(“Unfulfilled threats are very rarely sufficient to rise to the level of persecution.”);

Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1224 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]orture is more severe

than persecution.”). Moreover, Linares Ramos’s generalized evidence of violence

in El Salvador is not particular to her and is thus insufficient to satisfy her burden

for CAT relief.2 See Delgado-Ortiz, 600 F.3d at 1152 (holding that “generalized

evidence of violence and crime” is insufficient to meet the standard for CAT

relief). Her daughter’s claims fail for the same reasons.

2 Although reporting to police is not a prerequisite for CAT relief, the record does not compel the conclusion that reporting would have been futile or that Salvadoran officials would acquiesce or exhibit willful blindness to torture. See Ornelas- Chavez v. Gonzales, 458 F.3d 1052, 1058, 1059–60 (9th Cir. 2006).

3 23-119 DENIED.

4 23-119