Lozano-Membreno v. Garland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 9, 2024
• Docket: 23-998
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 9 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA CONSUELO LOZANO- No. 23-998 MEMBRENO; MARIA CASTILLO- Agency Nos. LOZANO; ZULEYMA MARILU A213-126-394 CASTILLO-LOZANO; EVELIN JOHANA A213-126-397 CASTILLO-LOZANO, A213-126-395 A213-126-396 Petitioners,

v. MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Submitted December 4, 2024** Seattle, Washington

Before: W. FLETCHER, BERZON, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Maria Consuelo Lozano-Membreno, a native and citizen of El Salvador,

* 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). petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision dismissing

her appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying her application for asylum,

withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. Haile v.

Holder, 658 F.3d 1122, 1125 (9th Cir. 2011). “Under this standard, we must uphold

the agency determination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.”

Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019).

1. The record does not compel the conclusion that the Salvadoran government

is unable or unwilling to protect Lozano-Membreno and her family. For instance,

after a shooting incident was reported to authorities in 2017, the government

reasonably responded to try to protect Lozano-Membreno’s family. Cf. Truong v.

Holder, 613 F.3d 938, 941 (9th Cir. 2010); accord Nahrvani v. Gonzales, 399 F.3d

1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2005). Salvadoran officials expeditiously responded to the

report (arriving fifteen minutes after Castillo—Lozano-Membreno’s partner—

called), collected evidence, and accompanied Castillo to the prosecutor’s office.

When later threatening, albeit non-criminal, activity was reported, Lozano-

Membreno’s own testimony reasonably suggests that the Salvadoran government

took such threats seriously. This record evidence supports the conclusion that the

Salvadoran government was willing to protect Lozano-Membreno and her family

from persecution.

2 23-998 Additionally, the fact that gang members made comments to Lozano-

Membreno’s sister that they knew Castillo filed a police report raises the

reasonable inference, supported by substantial evidence, that the gang members

were “afraid they might get in trouble,” which in turn supports the BIA’s factual

determination. This evidence reasonably suggests that the Salvadoran government

is not powerless to protect Lozano-Membreno and her family from persecution.

See J.R. v. Barr, 975 F.3d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 2020).

Thus, Lozano-Membreno has not shown that the record compels the

conclusion that the Salvadoran government would be unwilling or unable to protect

her. So she is not entitled to asylum or withholding of removal. See Navas v. INS,

217 F.3d 646, 655–56 (9th Cir. 2000) (asylum); Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d

1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (withholding of removal).

2. For the same reason, Lozano-Membreno has not demonstrated “sufficient

state action involved” in any harm she may experience upon returning to El

Salvador. See Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2010)

(citation omitted). To the contrary, there is substantial record evidence that the

Salvadoran government reasonably responded to and investigated Castillo and

Lozano-Membreno’s reports. Thus, her CAT claim fails.

PETITION DENIED.

3 23-998